Ephraim, the birthright, and the gathering

[CV75]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

Who do you believe Paul is referring to in Romans 15:12?

"And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over 
the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust".

Taking the verse in context of the rest of the verses into account, primarily Jesus, and also His designees that fit the description / commission. 

[InCognitus]

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

On 8/18/2024 at 6:31 PM, InCognitus said:

 

So Jesus himself didn’t go to the Gentiles, and Paul knows this.  But Paul shows that the scriptures foretold that the gospel would bet taken to the Gentiles through the Lord’s servants, as he proves by quoting Psalms 18:49 (or 2 Samuel 22:50), Psalms 117:1, and Isaiah 11:10. 

The Gentiles gather to Christ when the gospel is preached to them by Christ’s servants, but that is all done through Christ’s servants, and not by Jesus Christ personally.

I'm not sure how you see servants in Isaiah 11 when the manual only identifies one person in Isaiah 11:10,12.  

Are you getting the idea of Latter-day servants [plural] from Jacob 5:61,70,72,75 and also spoken of 
the seminary manual?

Please keep things in context.  You have done the same thing in prior responses.  In the quote from me above I was responding to your comments on Romans 15:8-12 (not Isaiah 11:10, 12 as you switched to now).  I was summarizing what Paul was discussing in Romans chapter 15, including Paul saying that Christ was the minister to the “circumcision” (the Jews) and that Paul (himself) was “the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles”.  That statement from Paul alone proves that the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles happened then, and even now, through God’s servants, and not by Jesus himself.   And yes, you are quite correct that Romans 15 doesn’t look like anything that would be fulfilled in Isaiah 11:10-16.

But if you want to see what I said about the Lord’s “servants” in Isaiah 11:12, see my post on 04/07/2024 (where you also took my comment out of context).  

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

Another thing I noticed is in verses Doctrine and Covenants 113:7 and 8:

"What is meant by the command in Isaiah, 52d chapter, 1st verse, which saith: Put on thy strength, 
O Zion—and what people had Isaiah reference to? He had reference to those whom God should call in 
the last days, who should hold the power of priesthood to bring again Zion, and the redemption of 
Israel; and to put on her strength is to put on the authority of the priesthood, which she, Zion, 
has a right to by lineage; also to return to that power which she had lost".

A few questions come to mind:

What priesthood is this referring to?
What lineage has the authority of the priesthood as its right?
What time did this lineage get this priesthood by right?

We’ve already discussed this.  Don’t start the conversation all over again.  The priesthood is the same priesthood as held by Abraham, and it is the lineage of Abraham that has the right to the priesthood, as noted in Abraham 2:11.

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

On 8/18/2024 at 6:31 PM, InCognitus said:

But REMEMBER (stay focused), we are discussing the identity of the person who shows up in Isaiah 11:10, which as I pointed out before is a verse that begins a completely new paragraph and topic in the Hebrew text (reread my post on 02/03/2024).  The arrival of that person signals the beginning of the final gathering of Israel as noted in Isaiah 11:11-16.

I know.  The LDS Church identifies the root and the rod as Joseph Smith.

Verses 11-12 say:

And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time 
to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and 
from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the 
islands of the sea. 

And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and 
gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

When, approximately, did Joseph Smith start the assembling of the outcasts of Israel and the 
gathering together of the dispersed of Judah?

You are rebooting the discussion and taking things out of context again.  Isaiah 11 doesn’t say the person mentioned in verse 10 is the one who does the assembling of the outcasts of Israel.  Rather, the arrival of the person in verse 10 is a sign or signal that the gathering of Israel is about to begin as described in the verses that follow.  And both the Gentiles (verse 10) and the scattered tribes of Israel (verse 12) are gathered to the ensign that is set up.

As discussed previously (in my post on 04/07/2024), the “he” in verse 12 is not the same as the “root” you are asking about (regarding Joseph Smith) in verse 10.  

And in verse 11 and 12 it says:  “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.  And he [the Lord] shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”  (Isaiah 11:10–12)

And also in that same post I mentioned that “the Lord” does this by sending forth his elders (the Lord’s servants) to start assembling the outcasts of Israel, by preaching the gospel to them.

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

Jeremiah 31:10 states, "Hear the word of the Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles 
afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth 
his flock." 

It is God who did the scattering.  It's the same person who does the gathering.

Yes, yes, that’s what I have been saying all along, God does the scattering and gathering through his “servants”, and he says so even in the case of the scattering.  For example:  

Isaiah 10:5-6:  “O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.  I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.”

Jeremiah 25:9:  “Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the Lord, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations.”

Jeremiah 27:6 : And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him.”

And the gathering is accomplished through his servants, by calling his prophet, raising the ensign to the nations, and by sending out his ministers to preach the gospel to them.

Jeremiah 23:3–4:  “And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase.  And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the Lord.”

Doctrine and Covenants 45:9:  “And even so I have sent mine everlasting covenant into the world, to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me.”

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

But regarding your statement of "far into the future from Christ's mortal ministry" for Isaiah 
11:10-16.   

Can you clarify the physical or spiritual aspect of this gathering?

If spiritual, wasn't Jesus performing the gathering through Peter, Paul, and the other disciples 
after His ascension? If physical, what is the destination for the gathering of the outcasts of 
Israel?

You’re rebooting the conversation again.  We’ve already discussed this aspect of the gathering in several posts. 

But to really understand exactly how “the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people” (Isaiah 11:11), you just need to look at how the Lord did it the first time, and I explained that in my post on 06/09/2024, and I’ll cut and past the relevant portion of that post here:

Begin Quote:

The first time was when the Lord gathered his people out of Egypt through Moses.  They were taken out of Egyptian bondage (their captivity) and the Lord first gathered and assembled them to be brought, as the Lord put it, “unto myself” at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:4-6) where they were sanctified and entered into a covenant with God and were made the people of God, a holy people.  And from there they went on to possess the lands that were promised to them through the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  The lands of their inheritance are a symbol of that covenant and are only fully received when they are in that covenant relationship with God.

Today the ten “lost tribes” of the house of Israel are not lost in the sense that they don’t know where they are geographically, they are “lost” only in the sense that they don’t know their identity in the covenant family of Israel or honor the covenants given to their fathers, and they haven’t received the new covenant that is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  For them to be “gathered” they must first come unto Christ and come to recognize their lineage.

So the Lord setting his hand again the “second time to recover the remnant of his people” follows the exact same pattern as the first:   Those who are of the tribes of Israel must first come unto Christ and enter into a covenant with him, by being baptized and making covenants in the temple, and in doing so they come out of their spiritual captivity and recognize who they are and are “gathered” and “assembled” as God’s people.  This is the same pattern as when Moses gathered Israel to Mount Sinai, which was the first temple of God.  Once they enter again into the covenant with God they are then eligible for the covenant promises given to their fathers, as symbolized by them being able to return to the lands of their inheritance.

End Quote.

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

Jesus was gathering (adding) to his church in the Book of Acts from a heavenly position and 
continues to do so,.

Does Jesus need to return to earth to gather the outcasts of Israel?

I don't see anywhere in scripture where a gathering of Israelites and Gentiles needs to be done 
by Christ personally after the Second Coming.

Now we are getting somewhere.  I’m glad to see that you now recognize this.  This is what I have been saying all along.  The person identified in Isaiah 11:10 can’t possibly be Christ coming personally, but it is an individual called and sent by Christ that is a sign and a signal that begins the gathering of Israel in the last days.

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

I see Jesus making a reference to the destruction in 70 A.D. but sometimes I think verses 20-27 
also point to a future state of events where enemy armies surround Jerusalem.  Sort of what we 
see in Zechariah 12:3.

I don’t believe a future fulfillment of Luke 21:24 is possible given that Israel will not be scattered again and the gathering for the “second time” has already begun.  Do you see anywhere in scripture where Israel will be gathered the “third time”?

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

Thank you that historical information.

So you believe the times of the Gentiles was fulfilled in 1967 since Jerusalem was no more trodden 
down of the Gentiles?

I don’t set dates for when things are completely “fulfilled”.  I see the fulfillment as a process over a period of time, and the more recent reoccupation of Jerusalem is just a starting point.  But it certainly indicates that we are in the period of time when the times of the Gentiles is being fulfilled (if not already fully fulfilled).  

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

I see that you mention the term "house of Israel". 

Do you believe Paul is referring to all Israelite tribes or just Judah (plus/minus Benjamin)?

What is the date "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" so the recovery of the blind of 
the house of Israel could begin?

The “house of Israel” applies to any or all of the tribes, wherever they may be found.

As for your date question, see my comments above.

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

I don't see "immediately" implied in Isaiah 11:10-16 but let's proceed with your line of reasoning.

When exactly was the ensign raised so the gathering of Israel [the remnant of his people, not the
Gentiles first] could commence immediately after it was raised?

By “immediately” I mean there is a direct connection between the standing up of the ensign to the people and the gathering that is described in the verses that follow.  It happens “in that day”, as the text says.  That’s not a literal 24-hour day of course, but it happens in the same period of time and signals the beginning of the fulfilling of the times of the Gentiles.

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

Would you help me understand what you wrote. It seems to be similar to Romans 11:25. "For I would 
not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own 
conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come 
in."

Questions about Doctrine and Covenants 45:28:

What year was the fulness of the gospel restored?
When is the time when the "time of the Gentiles is come in?"
When is the beginning point for God to gather Israel, not Gentile?

For me, I could sum up the gospel in one verse - John 3:16.  It was never lost and never needed 
to be restored.  One could use the Book of John instead of all the forty-seven chapters in Gospel 
Principles.  God made the gospel very easy to understand.

The restoration of the fulness of the gospel began when the heavens were opened again, and with the receiving of the plates of the Book of Mormon out of the earth on September 22, 1827, and with the organization of the restored church in 1830 and the restoration of the keys of the gathering of Israel on April 3, 1836, and with many other events that followed.  

As for the other dates, see my comments above.

And yes, you could summarize the gospel by quoting John 3:16.  But you would then need to ask yourself, if that is really the only thing God intended us to know about the gospel then why do we have the rest of the New Testament?  Why do we have epistles from the apostles working hard to guard against false doctrines and encourage the New Testament Christians to put off the works of the flesh and sow only to the Spirit so that they will reap eternal life?  Why would God include the parts about the importance of baptism, about ordaining elders in every congregation, and about the organization of apostles and prophets which he said should continue until “all come to a unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God”, so that we “be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine”?  The only reason I can think of to ignore all the rest is to try to avoid the fact that Jesus established a church with a specific organization for a very specific reason:  To bring unity in the faith and to guard against false doctrines that they prophesied would inevitably creep into the church when they weren’t around.

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

No, but the devil would not set up a religion that teaches all false principles. He mixes truth 
with error. His ultimate aim is to prevent people from worshipping the true God or have them 
worshipping a false god.

For example, a lot of what Jehovah's Witnesses teach is true.  But they proclaim another Jesus 
Christ; who they teach is Michael the Archangel. 

If Jesus really is Michael the Archangel, then many Christians are worshipping an angel.

Then we have the Latter-day Saints.  Let me summarize things as I understand them. 

An eternal intelligence became a spirit child of his heavenly parents.  This man would be born 
on some earth and then become a God.  Then this God went on to populate an unknown number of 
worlds (one of them being called Earth) with spirit children who would worship him - instead of 
them worshipping his own heavenly father (that is, the Grandfather God of Jesus Christ).  The 
LDS believe in and teach the Atonement of Jesus Christ, but their Jesus is another Jesus - the 
first spirit child of heavenly parents. He too went on to become a God. Somehow Jesus became a 
God in spirit form without the need to come to an earth to get a mortal body, follow the plan of 
salvation, and participate in a celestial marriage.

If that viewpoint is false, then Latter-day Saints are worshipping a false god. If the LDS 
viewpoint is true, then many people are worshipping a false god.

Or, it might mean that you are just setting up a false dichotomy between what constitutes a true and a false god, and what that means to a person’s salvation.  

I can say without question that both of us have an incomplete understanding of God and we both may have misconceptions in our minds about him.  And some people have more firsthand information about God the Father and Jesus Christ than others.  Take Mary the mother of Jesus as an example.  She knows more (and different) things about Jesus and his life than either of us know.  Does that mean we worship a different Jesus than Mary?   Does having more or different information about God, make one person to worship a false god and the other not?

If latter day prophets have more or different information about God and his plan revealed to them, it doesn’t necessarily mean that others who may not have that information are worshiping a false god, nor does it mean that Latter-day Saints are worshiping a false god because they have that information.

And Christians throughout Christian history have had differing views and teachings about God, and some of the teachings were later additions.  

For example, the earliest Christian writings (2nd and 3rd century AD, prior to the council of Nicaea at 325 AD) taught that Jesus is the "second God"  (Origen Against Celsus, book V chapter XXXIX,  Lactantius, The Divine Institutes - Book IV, Chap. VI), or that Jesus is "another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things” (Justin Martyr, Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew, ch LVI ). Or that "the nature of the Son, which is nearest to Him who is alone the Almighty One, is the most perfect, and most holy, and most potent, and most princely, and most kingly, and most beneficent."  (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 2).  Or even that Jesus, "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" (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, Chapter 2).   They also asked the question, “How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?” and “we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 38, and Chapter 39).  They also taught of other “gods as really existing” (Origen, Commentary on John, Book I, Chapter 34).

We could compare the above to later Christian modifications to the teachings about God, some of which were implemented in the first council of Nicaea at 325 AD.  Eusebius (a 4th century AD Christian historian) attended the council, and in a letter to his congregation he reported that a creed was first presented to the council and then the Emperor Constantine proposed that a word be inserted into the creed.  He wrote:  “When these articles of faith were proposed, there seemed to be no ground of opposition: nay, our most pious emperor himself was the first to admit that they were perfectly correct, and that he himself had entertained the sentiments contained in them; exhorting all present to give them their assent, and subscribe to these very articles, thus agreeing in a unanimous profession of them, with the insertion, however, of that single word “homoousios” (consubstantial)” (Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to his church regarding the Nicene Creed, see also here).   It is said of the council: “By persuasion and by threats of excommunication and exile, Constantine obtained the endorsement of all but two of the attending bishops for the inclusion of the word.”  (Wikipedia article, Homoousion).  The word (“homoousios”) that Constantine added was debated for years thereafter, but that word ultimately became the core concept of the doctrine on the Trinity, in the teaching that the Father and Son are the “one being" or "essence”. 

Now when examining these vastly different views about God through Christian history, which of them (if any) were worshipping “a false god”?  (Or is that even a valid question?)  Was it the earlier Christians?  Or the latter Christians that based their tradition upon a later creed?  And how would you know which view was right?  We could take what they taught and compare it to scripture, but the earliest Christian writers backed up everything they taught with scripture. The earlier Christians also had the benefit of living closer to the time of Jesus and the apostles, so they could have held to an apostolic tradition that had a more inspired interpretation of scripture, but the later views seem to benefit from the fact that the majority of modern Christians hold to the later tradition.  But how does the majority view help us in determining what is true?  I don’t think that helps, because Jesus taught, “strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:14).  So how would you know?

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

There was a minority of believers that kept hope alive in a coming future Messiah. Some examples 
were Simeon (Luke 2:25-35),  the prophetess Anna (Luke 2:36-38), and Philip (John 1:43-51).
 

On 8/18/2024 at 6:31 PM, InCognitus said:

 Or was it the fact that there were no prophets during that time and the word of the Lord was no longer given?

We know of the prophetess Anna (mentioned above) but we have no records of new canon between 
Malachi and New Testament writings.

So do we base the “famine” of Amos 8:11 on the absence of prophetic writings that may (or may not) be added to the canon of scripture?  Or do we base it on whether or not there were believers during the period of time? 

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

I don't believe God is finished saying all he is going to say but I don't believe we have to 
add sermons to the Bible to make it appear that the canon of scripture is still open.

Do you believe God may add more to the Bible and the word of God, but just hasn’t done it for some reason?  Or do you believe the canon of scripture is closed?

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

If outsiders were to look at the LDS Church, they could say that the canon of scripture was 
closed since the last revelation was given in the Doctrine and Covenants way back in 1978.  
Not sure why Declarations 1 and 2 were added in those terms to reflect revelation from God 
when none of the other sections of the D&C are referred to as Declaration 1,2,3, all the way 
up to 138.

Section 138 was added to the Doctrine and Covenants in 1981.  And “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” (Articles of Faith 1:9)  God has not changed, and the canon of scripture remains open eternally.

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

The famine is people rejecting the words of the Lord already written in the Bible.

That’s a rather creative interpretation of the verse.

Amos says “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.”  (Amos 8:11–12)

That’s not about people rejecting the words of the Lord already written in the Bible, on the contrary.  It is saying that they are seeking the word of the Lord and they can’t find it. They have no place to “hear the words of the Lord”.  And this is obviously not talking about the words of scripture (they have always had that), this would be the word of the Lord directly from the Lord himself as given through prophets.  It is as Isaiah said, “For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.”  (Isaiah 29:10)

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

Zechariah 10:1-12 is about the restoration of the houses of Judah and Israel. It's not about a 
gathering of Gentiles by the tribe of Ephraim. The gathering is mentioned in verse 10 - "I will 
bring them again also out of the land of Egypt, and gather them out of Assyria; and I will bring 
them into the land of Gilead and Lebanon; and place shall not be found for them".  It's a 
gathering of Israelites, not Gentiles.

Of course I didn’t say anything about Zechariah 10:6-12 having to do with Ephraim gathering the Gentiles.  But God sowing them among the people (the Gentiles) is the precursor to them doing their work among the Gentiles.

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

Before the Law was instituted, God had desired to make the Israelites (all of them, not just 
the men) into a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.  It's not some of you will be this while 
others of you will be that.  It's AND, not OR.

This is seen in Exodus 19:3-6:

And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt 
thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; 

Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you 
unto myself. 

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar 
treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 

And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou 
shalt speak unto the children of Israel. 

In the New Testament, the holy priesthood is made up of believers who have these attributes:

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up 
spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye 
should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous 
light: 

In computer lingo, these attributes are AND, not OR operators.

Please go through the verses above (Exodus 19:3-6; 1 Peter 2:5,9) and identify all words, 
descriptions, and actions that you believe are not applicable to faithful women.

Your exercise above is a perfect example of rationalizing a belief and imposing it upon scripture.  Nowhere in the Bible do we have any examples of women being ordained to the priesthood.  So you need to make it up by asking, “couldn’t this also be applicable to faithful women”?  Why not also ask, could a faithful woman be the Messiah?*  The answer is, perhaps they "could" do this, but does scripture say that to be the case?  No.  So why the futile exercise? You are just trying to rationalize some way to get it to work without having any scriptural evidence.

* Several groups have claimed that a woman was the female incarnation of Christ, such as the Shakers in the 18th century who believed Ann Lee was Christ, and more recently the "Eastern Lightning" group, teaching that Jesus Christ has returned to earth and is presently living as a Chinese woman.

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

Doctrine and Covenants 50 teaches that only ordained people can preach the gospel. 

No it doesn’t.  There is no “only” in the verses. 

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

I'm assuming this includes female LDS missionaries. 

You assume a lot of things that aren’t found in scripture or in any of the teachings.

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by 
the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other 
way? (17)

And if it be by some other way it is not of God. (18)

He that is ordained of God and sent forth, the same is appointed to be the greatest, 
notwithstanding he is the least and the servant of all. (26)

Women in our church are sent out by the laying on of hands to preach the gospel but we don't 
really view this as a formal ordination like how the Catholic Church ordains male priests.

But if a female sister wanted to stand on Fifth Avenue and preach the gospel on a street corner 
by reading straight from the Bible, she would not need authorization from the church. 

And this explains why you are rationalizing the belief even though it isn’t found in scripture.

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

Can you summarize what a male high priest in the LDS Church does for those who don't hold the 
priesthood?

Why?  What is the point of this question?

Edited September 1, 2024 by InCognitus

[ZealouslyStriving]

On 8/29/2024 at 6:34 AM, theplains said:

Who do you believe Paul is referring to in Romans 15:12?

"And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over 
the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust".

Doctrine and Covenants 113

"5 What is the root of Jesse spoken of in the 10th verse of the 11th chapter?

6 Behold, thus saith the Lord, it is a descendant of Jesse, as well as of Joseph, unto whom rightly belongs the priesthood, and the keys of the kingdom, for an ensign, and for the gathering of my people in the last days."

Edited September 1, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Mfbnew]

On 9/1/2024 at 7:52 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Doctrine and Covenants 113

"5 What is the root of Jesse spoken of in the 10th verse of the 11th chapter?

6 Behold, thus saith the Lord, it is a descendant of Jesse, as well as of Joseph, unto whom rightly belongs the priesthood, and the keys of the kingdom, for an ensign, and for the gathering of my people in the last days."

It always help to actually read the scriptures!

[theplains]

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

But if you want to see what I said about the Lord’s “servants” in Isaiah 11:12, see my post on 04/07/2024 (where you also took my comment out of context).

Do you believe Jacob 5:61,70,72,75 is speaking about Joseph Smith and subsequent LDS males?

I see that the word "pruned" in Doctrine and Covenants 39:17 refers to that.

"Wherefore lay to with your might and call faithful laborers into my vineyard, that it may be 
pruned [a] for the last time".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/39?lang=eng#note17a
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

The priesthood is the same priesthood as held by Abraham, and it is the lineage of Abraham that has the right to the priesthood, as noted in Abraham 2:11.

I'm assuming the priesthood of Abraham is Melchizedek.  

Which worthy males of the twelve tribes held that priesthood by right?  

I notice from Abraham 2:11 that the seed of Abraham represents two different things.

The first is priesthood.

"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in 
thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that 
this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, 
or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings 
of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal.

The second is the literal (bloodline) lineage of Abraham.

"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in 
thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that 
this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, 
or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings 
of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal".

I found that this first aspect of seed (the Priesthood) is also mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants 
84:33-34.

"For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods which I have spoken, and the 
magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. They 
become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and 
the elect of God".

Based on that, Christian women do not obtain the priesthood so they don't become the seed of 
Abraham and the elect of God.

New Testament writings show that all Christians become the seed of Abraham by adoption through 
faith.  They do not have to belong to the literal seed of Abraham and they do not need to obtain 
two priesthoods in order to become the elect of God.

Doctrine and Covenants 68:15-20, 107:40-41, together with Abraham 2:9-11, stresses the importance 
of being a descendant (of literal seed) as a requirement for holding the priesthood.

Why is that?
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

And both the Gentiles (verse 10) and the scattered tribes of Israel (verse 12) are gathered to the ensign that is set up.

Romans 11:25 says, "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest 
ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the 
fulness of the Gentiles be come in".

When is "the fulness of Gentiles be come in" so that Israel can begin to be healed of their 
blindness?
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

Yes, yes, that’s what I have been saying all along, God does the scattering and gathering through his “servants”, and he says so even in the case of the scattering.  For example:  

Isaiah 10:5-6:  “O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.  I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.”

Jeremiah 25:9:  “Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the Lord, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations.”

Jeremiah 27:6 : And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him.”

And the gathering is accomplished through his servants, by calling his prophet, raising the ensign to the nations, and by sending out his ministers to preach the gospel to them.

Jeremiah 23:3–4:  “And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase.  And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the Lord.”

Doctrine and Covenants 45:9:  “And even so I have sent mine everlasting covenant into the world, to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me.”

You seem to be conflating a physical gathering of Israel into their lands of inheritance with a 
spiritual gathering of Israel into the church of Christ.
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

Once they enter again into the covenant with God they are then eligible for the covenant promises given to their fathers, as symbolized by them being able to return to the lands of their inheritance.

Right. Biblically speaking, these lands of inheritance are not America.  But I understand that 
the Book of Mormon teaches about Lehi's new land of inheritance; but does not identify where.  
When we get to the Doctrine and Covenants, the land of inheritance is identified as Missouri.

This would be later expanded to encompass much more land.

"The prophets have spoken and written upon it; but I will make a proclamation that will cover a 
broader ground. The whole of America is Zion itself from north to south, and is described by the 
Prophets, who declare that it is the Zion where the mountain of the Lord should be, and that it 
should be in the center of the land. When Elders shall take up and examine the old prophecies in 
the Bible, they will see it" (History of the Church, volume 6).

https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-book/history-of-the-church-volume-6/volume-6-chapter-15

The Bible (Isaiah 2:1-3) speaks of the mountain of the Lord in the context of Israel, not America, 
and definitely not Salt Lake City like former President Gordon B. Hinckley says in the October 
2000 General Conference.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2000/10/this-great-millennial-year?lang=eng
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

Now we are getting somewhere.  I’m glad to see that you now recognize this.  This is what I have been saying all along.  The person identified in Isaiah 11:10 can’t possibly be Christ coming personally, but it is an individual called and sent by Christ that is a sign and a signal that begins the gathering of Israel in the last days.

You never did explain what in Isaiah 11 indicates 1830 and beyond or that the root cannot be 
Christ because he (the root) must be personally and/or immediately doing the gathering.
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

I don’t believe a future fulfillment of Luke 21:24 is possible given that Israel will not be scattered again and the gathering for the “second time” has already begun.  Do you see anywhere in scripture where Israel will be gathered the “third time”?

I see several gatherings spoken of in the scripture, some more significant and larger in scope 
than others.

The first time was when the Lord gathered his people out of Egypt. They were sanctified and became 
the people of God (Exodus 19:14).  As shown in Exodus 19:3-6, God told the children of Israel that 
if they kept covenant with Him then they would be a "peculiar treasure unto me above all people ... 
a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation".

Another time is when they returned from Babylonian captivity.

Another time is when Christ and the disciples preached the gospel to them. This has been going on 
since the times of Christ.

Another time is when they began returning to Israel in 1948.

A more significant gathering, referred to as the "second time", is mentioned in Isaiah 11:11-12.

I believe this is a reference to Ezekiel chapter 37.  Verses 12-13 explains this clearly.

"Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, 
Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and 
say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause 
you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel".

It's clarified again in verses 21-22.

"And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among 
the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their 
own land: And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king 
shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided 
into two kingdoms any more at all".

This is not the land or mountains of America.
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

I don’t set dates for when things are completely “fulfilled”.  I see the fulfillment as a process over a period of time, and the more recent reoccupation of Jerusalem is just a starting point.  But it certainly indicates that we are in the period of time when the times of the Gentiles is being fulfilled (if not already fully fulfilled).

Fulfilled equals completely fulfilled.  Fulfilled does not imply a future, a starting point, or 
sometime in the midst of being fulfilled.

But at the same time, I see several "times of the Gentiles" which have a beginning and end 
depending on how it's used in the scripture.

One was fulfilled when Jerusalem was encompassed by armies and then destroyed (around 70 A.D.).

Another was when the Jews rejected the gospel as a nation and then it was taken to the Gentiles. 
This has been going on since Jesus gave the Great Commission – to go into all the world and preach 
the gospel.  When the times of the Gentiles ends in this case, then I believe God's focus will 
turn entirely to the Israelites with the sealing of the 144,000 before the Second Coming.  That 
is why I don't believe God right now is specifically calling literal members of Ephraim, Manasseh, 
or other Israelite tribes to gather and convert unbelieving Israelites and Gentiles.  This is 
because of what Paul wrote - "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this 
mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, 
until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in".  I believe the fulness of the Gentiles has not come 
in yet. 

Maybe another time was when the times of the Gentiles ended in 1967 when Israel recaptured the 
remaining part of Jerusalem.

Maybe another time is the future when all the nations come up to Jerusalem for battle and the Lord 
returns (Zechariah 14:4).

You said previously the recent reoccupation of Jerusalem is just a starting point.

A starting point for what?

I came across some LDS teachings about the "times of the Gentiles".

Come Unto Christ (chapter fourteen, Prepare for the Great Day of the Lord) says:

"The times of the Gentiles" refers to that period of time extending from when the gospel was 
restored to the world (1830) to when the gospel will again be preached to the Jews—after the 
Gentiles have rejected it. This is how the Lord explained it: "When the times of the Gentiles 
is come in, a light shall break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the 
fulness of my gospel; but they receive it not; for they perceive not the light, and they turn 
their hearts from me because of the precepts of men. And in that generation shall the times of 
the Gentiles be fulfilled." (Doctrine and Covenants 45:28-30; italics added.)

The times of the Gentiles is not fulfilled until they see others signs as the chapter explains.

https://ia600303.us.archive.org/10/items/WeBelieveRulonTBurton_201606/Come_unto_Christ_-_Ezra_Taft_Benson.html

Help tip: Copy and paste the contents of that page into a text file and save it as an HTML file.  
Then open that file with your web browser so it's much easier to read.

In your 01/25/2024 reply, you said "Furthermore, Jesus says in these verses that they will remain 
in this scattered state "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled".

Christ's reference to "they" is about all of Israel, not just several tribes.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75619-are-there-biblical-scriptures-that-my-lds-friends-believe-refer-specifically-and-only-to-the-lds-church/page/4/#comment-1210174694

So do you believe the Israelites will be in a scattered state (in spiritual darkness) until after 
the Gentiles have rejected it (until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled) – until the fulness 
of the Gentiles be come in (Romans 11:25)?

The 3-volume set of "Doctrines of Salvation" says on page 103:

ANCIENT COVENANTS RENEWED. The Jews continued, possessing the land of Palestine until after the 
days of Christ. Then, because of their wickedness and the fact that they had risen up against the 
Son of God, they too were scattered among the nations of the earth and became a hiss and a byword, 
and were so to remain until, the Lord says, the times of the gentiles shall be fulfilled. Now the 
Jews are being gathered again, because the times of the gentiles are coming to their close.

Again, it isolates Jews from all the tribes.

https://josephsmithfoundation.org/doctrines-of-salvation/

This seems to indicate that the gathering of Israel occurs before the fulness of the Gentiles be 
come in.

I view Zechariah 10 as referring to both kingdoms of Israel so the "hiss" in Zechariah 10:8 (or
"byword" in other scriptures) is applicable to all tribes, not just one, when you look at the 
overall picture.

Some examples are found here:

1 Kings 9:8 - And this house will become a heap of ruins. Everyone passing by it will be astonished 
and will hiss, and they will say, ‘Why has the Lord done thus to this land and to this house?'

Jeremiah 19:8 - And I will make this city a horror, a thing to be hissed at. Everyone who passes 
by it will be horrified and will hiss because of all its wounds.

Jeremiah 49:17 - Edom shall become a horror. Everyone who passes by it will be horrified and will 
hiss because of all its disasters.

Jeremiah 50:13 - Because of the wrath of the Lord she shall not be inhabited but shall be an utter 
desolation; everyone who passes by Babylon shall be appalled, and hiss because of all her wounds.

Lamentations 2:15 - All who pass along the way clap their hands at you; they hiss and wag their 
heads at the daughter of Jerusalem: "Is this the city that was called the perfection of beauty, 
the joy of all the earth?

Lamentations 2:16 - All your enemies rail against you; they hiss, they gnash their teeth, they 
cry: "We have swallowed her! Ah, this is the day we longed for; now we have it; we see it!"

Deuteronomy 28:37 - And you shall become a horror, a proverb, and a byword among all the peoples 
where the Lord will lead you away.

1 Kings 9:7 - then I will cut off Israel from the land that I have given them, and the house that 
I have consecrated for my name I will cast out of my sight, and Israel will become a proverb and 
a byword among all peoples.

2 Chronicles 7:20 - then I will pluck you up from my land that I have given you, and this house 
that I have consecrated for my name, I will cast out of my sight, and I will make it a proverb and 
a byword among all peoples.

Psalms 44:14 - You have made us a byword among the nations, a laughingstock among the peoples.

Jeremiah 24:9 - I will make them a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a reproach, a 
byword, a taunt, and a curse in all the places where I shall drive them.

Ezekiel 14:8 - And I will set my face against that man; I will make him a sign and a byword and 
cut him off from the midst of my people, and you shall know that I am the Lord.

Daniel 9:16 - O Lord, according to all your righteous acts, let your anger and your wrath turn 
away from your city Jerusalem, your holy hill, because for our sins, and for the iniquities of 
our fathers, Jerusalem and your people have become a byword among all who are around us.

Joel 2:17 - Between the vestibule and the altar let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep 
and say, "Spare your people, O Lord, and make not your heritage a reproach, a byword among the 
nations. Why should they say among the peoples, ‘Where is their God?'"

Zechariah 8:13 - And as you have been a byword of cursing among the nations, O house of Judah and 
house of Israel, so will I save you, and you shall be a blessing. Fear not, but let your hands be 
strong.
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

By “immediately” I mean there is a direct connection between the standing up of the ensign to the people and the gathering that is described in the verses that follow.  It happens “in that day”, as the text says.  That’s not a literal 24-hour day of course, but it happens in the same period of time and signals the beginning of the fulfilling of the times of the Gentiles.

You never did explain how Isaiah 11 refers to 1830 and excludes any missionary work done by 
Christ's disciples, post resurrection, to the Gentiles after Israel as a whole rejected the 
gospel.

Alright. It seems you believe 1830 is the start of the times of the Gentiles.
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

The restoration of the fulness of the gospel began when the heavens were opened again, and with the receiving of the plates of the Book of Mormon out of the earth on September 22, 1827, and with the organization of the restored church in 1830 and the restoration of the keys of the gathering of Israel on April 3, 1836, and with many other events that followed.

Do you believe the LDS Church had the fulness of the gospel in 1830 or do you believe the "fulness" 
is the Book of Mormon plus the Pearl of Great Price plus the Doctrine and Covenants + all else that 
you believe God reveals after 1978 (even though not canonized)? Like the fulness is not full yet 
but a work in progress?
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

As for the other dates, see my comments above.

And yes, you could summarize the gospel by quoting John 3:16.  But you would then need to ask yourself, if that is really the only thing God intended us to know about the gospel then why do we have the rest of the New Testament?  Why do we have epistles from the apostles working hard to guard against false doctrines and encourage the New Testament Christians to put off the works of the flesh and sow only to the Spirit so that they will reap eternal life?  Why would God include the parts about the importance of baptism, about ordaining elders in every congregation, and about the organization of apostles and prophets which he said should continue until “all come to a unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God”, so that we “be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine”?  The only reason I can think of to ignore all the rest is to try to avoid the fact that Jesus established a church with a specific organization for a very specific reason:  To bring unity in the faith and to guard against false doctrines that they prophesied would inevitably creep into the church when they weren’t around.

The other writings are as you said, to grow and protect the Christian community and faith.  But 
all these things do not constitute the gospel – the good news.  The gospel is simply John 3:16.

Yes.  Jesus established his church.  But his church was not destroyed as the 1997 Gospel Principles 
teaches.  The LDS Church wised up and removed that false teaching from its current version.

The Book of Mormon used to say that it contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the Gospel.  
The "as does the Bible" was removed from the current version of the BOM.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/introduction?lang=eng

I would reword it to "The Book of Mormon and the Bible contains the gospel".
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

Or, it might mean that you are just setting up a false dichotomy between what constitutes a true and a false god, and what that means to a person’s salvation.

What part (s) of my summary of how the LDS Church depicts the nature of God do you believe is 
true or false?
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

Take Mary the mother of Jesus as an example.  She knows more (and different) things about Jesus and his life than either of us know.  Does that mean we worship a different Jesus than Mary?   Does having more or different information about God, make one person to worship a false god and the other not?

It depends on if you believe and worship a Jesus who is the first spirit children of heavenly 
parents who progressed into becoming a God in some celestial home.

Do you worship a God who Joseph Smith taught was a man who became a God and who was not God from 
everlasting to everlasting?  Is this a different God than a God who has always existed as God?
Definitely.  Can we know from scripture which God is true?  Definitely.

The Jesus of Jehovah's Witnesses is Michael the Archangel.  I don't worship that Jesus.

Several false religions have arisen throughout time.  They all started with some truth but then 
added a little bit of error about who God is. Look no further than Hinduism's elephant-headed
God called Ganesha.

Here's a hypothetical conversation between two friends living in Los Angeles, Mike and Helen. Only 
a mile separates them. Tim, the basketball player, lives within 2 miles of each of them. 

Mike: "Hi Helen, tonight I'm going to Tim's house.  Want to come?"
Helen: "Sure. What time?"
Mike: "About 8 pm".
Helen: "Can we make it earlier?  It takes me 3 hours to drive to Tim's place from my house because
of all the traffic".
Mike: "Huh? Tim only lives 2 miles away".
Helen: "Really. I thought Tim lived in San Diego?"
Mike: "No.  He lives very close to us.  I thought you said you knew him?"
Helen: "Sure I know him.  I met him a few days ago.  He was nice enough to give me his football 
jersey after getting the MVP award in the Rose Ball for throwing the winning touchdown with seconds 
left in the game."
Mike: "Huh?  No. Tim only plays basketball. I don't know your Tim".

Mike and Helen are not speaking about the same Tim. One Tim keeps you in Los Angeles. The other
Tim brings you to San Diego.
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

If latter day prophets have more or different information about God and his plan revealed to them, it doesn’t necessarily mean that others who may not have that information are worshiping a false god, nor does it mean that Latter-day Saints are worshiping a false god because they have that information.

LDS prophets have taught a God who is not found in scripture.

•    Married to at least one wife.
•    Not God from everlasting to everlasting.
•    Once a man who became a God and was then worshipped by his own spirit children.

The Latter-day Saints have a different Jesus.  This is why Paul was warning about those who would 
come and preach a different Jesus and a different gospel.
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

And Christians throughout Christian history have had differing views and teachings about God, and some of the teachings were later additions.

Yes. They deviated from scripture and deceived those who did not hold on to the truth.

There are many man-made, false gods whom people worship.  There is only one God, but this hasn't 
stopped Hindus from inventing their own gods.  One example being Ganesha, the god with an elephant 
head. Then we have the God of Islam.  He is not the Heavenly Father who loved the world and gave 
His son as an atonement for sin.
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

Now when examining these vastly different views about God through Christian history, which of them (if any) were worshipping “a false god”?  (Or is that even a valid question?)  Was it the earlier Christians?  Or the latter Christians that based their tradition upon a later creed?  And how would you know which view was right?  We could take what they taught and compare it to scripture, but the earliest Christian writers backed up everything they taught with scripture. The earlier Christians also had the benefit of living closer to the time of Jesus and the apostles, so they could have held to an apostolic tradition that had a more inspired interpretation of scripture, but the later views seem to benefit from the fact that the majority of modern Christians hold to the later tradition.  But how does the majority view help us in determining what is true?  I don’t think that helps, because Jesus taught, “strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:14).  So how would you know?

I would recommend staying with the scripture.  Here is just one of them.  The key words are know, 
believe, and understand.

"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".

In LDS theology, Gods are formed before and after Heavenly Father.  Even Heavenly Father, the LDS 
version, is a God who was formed. Like others, he always existed as an eternal intelligence, was 
born as a spirit to his heavenly parents, became a man on some earth, got married, became worthy 
of exaltation, and then became the Heavenly Father of our Earth.

While I don't accept the LDS scriptures on the same level as the Bible, there is enough truth in 
them to show that even the major characteristics of Jesus Christ in them is not the Jesus being 
taught in LDS Church manuals.  The Book of Mormon even says that Heavenly Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Ghost is one God, not three Gods.
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

So do we base the “famine” of Amos 8:11 on the absence of prophetic writings that may (or may not) be added to the canon of scripture?  Or do we base it on whether or not there were believers during the period of time?

The context of Amos 8:11 is the land of Israel though. I gather that from verse 14.  But I believe 
it was mostly for the northern kingdom, where Amos (from the southern kingdom) went to.

Another case of famine is when the people did not have prophets or when the writings were buried 
somewhere, then discovered, and then great lamentation was made when it was found and read.

One such example is Second Chronicles, chapter 34. This chapter describes King Josiah's reign over 
Judah and how, during his efforts to repair the Temple, the High Priest Hilkiah found a book of 
the Law of the Lord given through Moses. When the contents of the book were read to King Josiah, 
he tore his clothes in distress over the realization of how far the people had strayed from God's 
commandments. This discovery led Josiah to initiate a significant religious reform throughout the 
kingdom, steering the people back to the worship of God according to the laws found in the newly 
discovered scroll. This narrative highlights a critical moment of repentance and revival based on 
the rediscovery of sacred scriptures.

There was significant famine between Malachi and the New Testament but there were some who were 
still expecting the Messiah to come. I provided a few names in my last reply.
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe God may add more to the Bible and the word of God, but just hasn’t done it for some reason?  Or do you believe the canon of scripture is closed?

I don't see a reason for God to add more to the Bible.  What we have there is sufficient to know 
for eternal life.  We don't need to know 100% of what God knows. We just need to know what He wants 
us to know.

As John says in several places:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in 
this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; 
and that believing ye might have life through his name" (John 20:30-31).

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every 
one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. 
Amen" (John 21:25)

Our Sunday sermons are based on the scriptures so we try not to introduce or pass off something 
as new light if it contradicts the light we already have.

We don't believe in becoming prolific in producing extensive volumes of books like is found in 
the LDS Church and among Jehovah's Witnesses.  Based on the other thread that I see on the forum 
about "General Handbook", we definitely don't have anything like that when it comes to whether 
it's okay to drink coffee or Coke in moderation or how to dress or if men should be shaved or 
have a face well groomed.

Unlike the "Journal of Discourses" which is not part of LDS canon, what authentic writings from 
ancient disciples and apostles we have are part of our canon.  

If not adding to the Doctrine and Covenants means the canon is closed, then so be it.

This line of thinking even made its way into the Book of Mormon, in 2 Nephi 29:3.

This verse is part of a broader discussion where God, supposedly speaking through the prophet 
Nephi, addresses the attitudes of some people who would reject additional scripture beyond the 
Bible. The verse reads: "And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A 
Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible."

This scripture is highlighting the Lord's rebuke of the notion that He would no longer speak to 
His children or provide further guidance through additional scriptures. The subsequent verses 
emphasize that God will speak to all nations and will provide His words through many books, not 
limiting His word to the Bible alone. This underscores a central theme in Latter-day Saint 
theology—that God continues to reveal His will through modern prophets and additional scriptures 
like the Book of Mormon.

And yet, in about 6000 years of history, we have many nations but only two books (the Bible for 
the Old World, and supposedly the Book of Mormon for the New World).  China, India, Japan, Russia, 
and all the other nations of the world don't have books for them. Well … unless one believes they 
are still buried in the ground like some believe the plates of brass and gold were buried and then 
discovered.
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

Section 138 was added to the Doctrine and Covenants in 1981.  And “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” (Articles of Faith 1:9)  God has not changed, and the canon of scripture remains open eternally.

Hopefully the new light for the LDS Church in Doctrines and Covenants does further contradict the 
previous light.

Here are a few examples:

Doctrine and Covenants 20:17 – By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is 
infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of 
heaven and earth, and all things which are in them.

Doctrine and Covenants 39:1 – Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity 
to all eternity, the Great I AM, even Jesus Christ.

This is the true God.
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

That’s a rather creative interpretation of the verse.

Amos says “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.”  (Amos 8:11–12)

That’s not about people rejecting the words of the Lord already written in the Bible, on the contrary.  It is saying that they are seeking the word of the Lord and they can’t find it. They have no place to “hear the words of the Lord”.  And this is obviously not talking about the words of scripture (they have always had that), this would be the word of the Lord directly from the Lord himself as given through prophets.  It is as Isaiah said, “For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.”  (Isaiah 29:10)

If I did not address this sufficiently in my previous comments about Amos 8, let me know and I'll 
try again.
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

Of course I didn’t say anything about Zechariah 10:6-12 having to do with Ephraim gathering the Gentiles.  But God sowing them among the people (the Gentiles) is the precursor to them doing their work among the Gentiles.

I don't see the "them" of Zechariah 10:6-12 as solely the tribe of Ephraim.  All the tribes of 
Israel are collectively revealed in verse 6.  The entire chapter is about the northern and southern 
kingdoms.

If you want to focus solely on the tribe of Ephraim, then one could do likewise in Zechariah 10:3 
(where Judah is God's flock and his goodly horse in battle) and Isaiah 5:7 (where the vineyard of 
the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel and the men of Judah are his pleasant plant).

In your case, God sowing Joseph Smith (a Gentile) among the Gentiles if I recall.  

I wonder if God sowing Gentiles (then having them declared to be in the literal lineage of Abraham) 
and having them work among the Gentiles (yet to be declared to be in the lineage of Abraham) 
qualifies too.  Or maybe actual Israelites are being sown among the Gentiles.
 

On 9/1/2024 at 2:00 AM, InCognitus said:

Why?  What is the point of this question?

I wanted to know how you understand 1 Peter 2:5,9:

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up 
spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ". 

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye 
should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous 
light". 

What parts do you believe apply to an LDS high priest and which do not apply to LDS females?

[theplains]

On 8/29/2024 at 11:38 AM, CV75 said:

Taking the verse in context of the rest of the verses into account, primarily Jesus, and also His designees that fit the description / commission. 

In the context of Romans 15:9-13, verse 10 says, "And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, 
with his people".

Verse 11 says, "And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people".

Verse 12 says, "For this cause I [Paul] will confess to thee [Jesus] among the Gentiles, and 
sing unto thy [Christ's] name".

Do you believe Paul would be confessing other apostles to the Gentiles, singing unto 
their names, and encouraging the Gentiles to laud himself, Peter, and the other apostles?

[theplains]

On 9/1/2024 at 10:52 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Doctrine and Covenants 113

"5 What is the root of Jesse spoken of in the 10th verse of the 11th chapter?

6 Behold, thus saith the Lord, it is a descendant of Jesse, as well as of Joseph, unto whom rightly belongs the priesthood, and the keys of the kingdom, for an ensign, and for the gathering of my people in the last days."

Besides this equating Joseph Smith as a descendant of Jesse as well as Joseph, I see that
he's also referred to as a Gentile and pure Ephraimite in other church teachings.

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, theplains said:

In the context of Romans 15:9-13, verse 10 says, "And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, 
with his people".

Verse 11 says, "And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people".

Verse 12 says, "For this cause I [Paul] will confess to thee [Jesus] among the Gentiles, and 
sing unto thy [Christ's] name".

Do you believe Paul would be confessing other apostles to the Gentiles, singing unto 
their names, and encouraging the Gentiles to laud himself, Peter, and the other apostles?

I don't think his entire message in the Chapter was limited to these few words. Whatever we do in applying the teachings and ordinances of His servants (whom he mentions alongside Christ) as they rule and preside in His Church confesses and lauds Christ. Of course we confess and laud Him first and foremost, and part of honoring Him is to  hearken to His servants called to the holy priesthood order.

[InCognitus]

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

Do you believe Jacob 5:61,70,72,75 is speaking about Joseph Smith and subsequent LDS males?

I see that the word "pruned" in Doctrine and Covenants 39:17 refers to that.

"Wherefore lay to with your might and call faithful laborers into my vineyard, that it may be 
pruned [a] for the last time".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/39?lang=eng#note17a

That section (verses 50-76) is about the time of the restoration of the gospel and includes all who work in the Lord’s “vineyard”.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

On 9/1/2024 at 12:00 AM, InCognitus said:

The priesthood is the same priesthood as held by Abraham, and it is the lineage of Abraham that has the right to the priesthood, as noted in Abraham 2:11.

I'm assuming the priesthood of Abraham is Melchizedek.  

Which worthy males of the twelve tribes held that priesthood by right?  

Obviously all of them (before they broke the covenant on Mount Sinai), since they are all of the seed of Abraham.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

I notice from Abraham 2:11 that the seed of Abraham represents two different things.

The first is priesthood.

"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in 
thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that 
this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, 
or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings 
of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal.

The second is the literal (bloodline) lineage of Abraham.

"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in 
thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that 
this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, 
or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings 
of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal".

I found that this first aspect of seed (the Priesthood) is also mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants 
84:33-34.

"For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods which I have spoken, and the 
magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. They 
become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and 
the elect of God".

I noticed that the seed of Abraham represents three different things in Abraham 2:9-11 (not just two).  

You have a knack for ignoring context, and it seems that you totally missed verse 10:  “And I will bless them through thy name; for as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father” (Abraham 2:10).

The three different ways that the term “seed” is used in those verses is also discussed by Mark Hamstead in his article, “On Being the Sons of Moses and Aaron: Another Look at Interpreting the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood”, on Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 29 (2018).  I’ll quote his explanation here:

“Abraham was promised his ‘literal seed,’ meaning his descendants, would bear the priesthood and use it to bless all nations with the blessings of the gospel, even salvation and life eternal. His ‘seed’ is also referred to as his priesthood, implying that those who hold the priesthood are his ‘seed.’  But those who are blessed through the priesthood are to be accounted his ‘seed’ also (Abraham 2:9–11). The term “seed” is thus used in three ways: firstly, the literal or biological descendants; secondly, those who inherit the priesthood authority Abraham held; and thirdly, those who inherit the blessings of the gospel through the ministration of that priesthood. The context in Section 84 suggests that the sonship referred to is the second of these three: inheriting Abraham’s priesthood — the right to teach and administer the ordinances and covenants of the Gospel — which was passed from Abraham down through the fathers to Moses and Aaron.”

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

Based on that, Christian women do not obtain the priesthood so they don't become the seed of 
Abraham and the elect of God.

This is the same backward logic you tried to use several times before.  Obviously what you say above is wrong given the context as explained above.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

New Testament writings show that all Christians become the seed of Abraham by adoption through 
faith.  They do not have to belong to the literal seed of Abraham and they do not need to obtain 
two priesthoods in order to become the elect of God.

And Abraham 2:10 also says that “as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed”, just like in the New Testament.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

Doctrine and Covenants 68:15-20, 107:40-41, together with Abraham 2:9-11, stresses the importance 
of being a descendant (of literal seed) as a requirement for holding the priesthood.

Why is that?

Those are three completely different situations.  

Doctrine and Covenants 68:15-20 is about a literal descendant of Aaron (Levitical priesthood), which doesn’t work the same way as with the Melchizedek priesthood.  A literal descendant of Aaron has a legal right to the presiding bishopric, but if there is no literal descendant of Aaron around, then three high priests holding the Melchizedek priesthood can officiate in the office of presiding bishopric (see Doctrine and Covenants 68:14-24; 107:13-17, 68-76).

And Doctrine and Covenants 107:40-41 discusses the patriarchal order of the priesthood from Adam to Noah.  It was a patriarchal order prior to the law of Moses (we discussed that previously, see my post on 03/16/2024), 

And Abraham 2:9-11 discusses the future use of the priesthood by the three definitions of the “seed” of Abraham I explained above.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

Romans 11:25 says, "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest 
ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the 
fulness of the Gentiles be come in".

When is "the fulness of Gentiles be come in" so that Israel can begin to be healed of their 
blindness?

1 Nephi 15:13–14:  “And now, the thing which our father meaneth concerning the grafting in of the natural branches through the fulness of the Gentiles, is, that in the latter days, when our seed shall have dwindled in unbelief, yea, for the space of many years, and many generations after the Messiah shall be manifested in body unto the children of men, then shall the fulness of the gospel of the Messiah come unto the Gentiles, and from the Gentiles unto the remnant of our seed— And at that day shall the remnant of our seed know that they are of the house of Israel, and that they are the covenant people of the Lord; and then shall they know and come to the knowledge of their forefathers, and also to the knowledge of the gospel of their Redeemer, which was ministered unto their fathers by him; wherefore, they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer and the very points of his doctrine, that they may know how to come unto him and be saved.”

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

You seem to be conflating a physical gathering of Israel into their lands of inheritance with a 
spiritual gathering of Israel into the church of Christ.

You seem to be misunderstanding the process the Lord used when he recovered the remnant of his people the “first time”, because the exact same process also applies to the “second time”.  When Israel was recovered the “first time”, they were first “gathered” and “assembled” to Sinai (the temple, the mountain of the Lord) to become a people of God and make covenants with him.  It wasn’t until they made their covenants and understood their identity as a “people” of God that they were allowed to go into the lands of their inheritance.  The exact same process happens today.  Israel receiving their covenants in the temples of the Lord and recognizing themselves as a people of God is part of the process of “gathering” and “assembling”.  The land inheritance comes later.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

On 9/1/2024 at 12:00 AM, InCognitus said:

Once they enter again into the covenant with God they are then eligible for the covenant promises given to their fathers, as symbolized by them being able to return to the lands of their inheritance.

Right. Biblically speaking, these lands of inheritance are not America.

Actually, you agreed (biblically speaking) that Ephraim was allotted the “entire world”, remember?:

On 2/29/2024 at 7:38 AM, theplains said:

Since the prophetic utterance of Ephraim (… and his seed shall become a multitude of nations;
Genesis 48:19), it is technically possible that the tribe of Ephraim would be allotted the 
entire world.

Which version of “the entire world” would exclude America?

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

 But I understand that 
the Book of Mormon teaches about Lehi's new land of inheritance; but does not identify where.  
When we get to the Doctrine and Covenants, the land of inheritance is identified as Missouri.

This would be later expanded to encompass much more land.

"The prophets have spoken and written upon it; but I will make a proclamation that will cover a 
broader ground. The whole of America is Zion itself from north to south, and is described by the 
Prophets, who declare that it is the Zion where the mountain of the Lord should be, and that it 
should be in the center of the land. When Elders shall take up and examine the old prophecies in 
the Bible, they will see it" (History of the Church, volume 6).

https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-book/history-of-the-church-volume-6/volume-6-chapter-15

The Bible (Isaiah 2:1-3) speaks of the mountain of the Lord in the context of Israel, not America, 
and definitely not Salt Lake City like former President Gordon B. Hinckley says in the October 
2000 General Conference.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2000/10/this-great-millennial-year?lang=eng

Where do you find the Bible saying anything about “not America”?

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

On 9/1/2024 at 12:00 AM, InCognitus said:

Now we are getting somewhere.  I’m glad to see that you now recognize this.  This is what I have been saying all along.  The person identified in Isaiah 11:10 can’t possibly be Christ coming personally, but it is an individual called and sent by Christ that is a sign and a signal that begins the gathering of Israel in the last days.

You never did explain what in Isaiah 11 indicates 1830 and beyond or that the root cannot be 
Christ because he (the root) must be personally and/or immediately doing the gathering.

Where have you been?  This is what we have been discussing for the past nine months or more.  

In your post on 04/16/2024 you said the following in response to my comments about Isaiah 11:10-12:

On 4/16/2024 at 7:54 AM, theplains said:

I've always understood Jesus being the sole servant (and not with the assistance of 
Christians) who is gathering the outcasts of Israel and the dispersed of Judah back to 
their land.

And in your post prior to this current one you said “It is God who did the scattering.  It's the same person who does the gathering.”  But scripture clearly shows (as I documented in my last post) that God does the scattering and gathering through his “servants”, and that’s how the gathering began in 1830 and beyond: through Christ’s servant and servants.

And Isaiah 11:10-16 sets up an association between the coming of the “root of Jesse” and the setting up of the ensign of the people and the beginning of the gathering.  The gathering has started, so obviously the servants of Christ have come and the ensign has been established.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

I see several gatherings spoken of in the scripture, some more significant and larger in scope 
than others.

The first time was when the Lord gathered his people out of Egypt. They were sanctified and became 
the people of God (Exodus 19:14).  As shown in Exodus 19:3-6, God told the children of Israel that 
if they kept covenant with Him then they would be a "peculiar treasure unto me above all people ... 
a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation".

Yes, what you describe above is the first time.  And this is why Isaiah says in Isaiah 11:11 “that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people”.  And everything you describe above happened to Israel long before they were able to inherit the lands that were promised to them in the Abrahamic covenant.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

Another time is when they returned from Babylonian captivity.

Another time is when Christ and the disciples preached the gospel to them. This has been going on 
since the times of Christ.

Obviously neither of these examples count as one of the gathering “times”, since the Lord didn’t include them in his count in Isaiah 11:11 when he says he will recover them “the second time”.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

Another time is when they began returning to Israel in 1948.

A more significant gathering, referred to as the "second time", is mentioned in Isaiah 11:11-12.

I believe this is a reference to Ezekiel chapter 37.  Verses 12-13 explains this clearly.

"Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, 
Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and 
say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause 
you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel".

It's clarified again in verses 21-22.

"And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among 
the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their 
own land: And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king 
shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided 
into two kingdoms any more at all".

This is not the land or mountains of America.

I have never objected to the fact that Israel will be gathered to their original lands that were promised to Abraham, I simply disagree with you limiting them to the original lands promised to Abraham when God promised much more for an inheritance to Jacob and Joseph.  You aren’t looking at all of scripture.  What you seem to continue to ignore or don’t understand is that Jacob passed on to Joseph the blessing from God given to him, saying to Joseph that the “blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors… they shall be on the head of Joseph” (Genesis 49:22-26).  That blessing was that “thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 28:14).  You are putting limits on the blessing that God gave to Jacob and upon the head of Joseph and aren’t looking at everything God promised to them.

And remember, you agreed (based on the blessing described above) that this would mean that “the tribe of Ephraim would be allotted the entire world”.  How does the “entire world” exclude the land or mountains of America?

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

On 9/1/2024 at 12:00 AM, InCognitus said:

I don’t set dates for when things are completely “fulfilled”.  I see the fulfillment as a process over a period of time, and the more recent reoccupation of Jerusalem is just a starting point.  But it certainly indicates that we are in the period of time when the times of the Gentiles is being fulfilled (if not already fully fulfilled).

Fulfilled equals completely fulfilled.  Fulfilled does not imply a future, a starting point, or 
sometime in the midst of being fulfilled.

Fulfilment of a prophecy can happen over a period of time.  Take this prophecy from Jesus as an example: “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”  (Matthew 21:43)

When was that prophecy “fulfilled”?

Was it in Acts 13:46?  “Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles”.

Or was it fulfilled later in Acts 18:6?  “And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.”

Or was it even later in Acts 28:28?  “Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.” 

My answer is that the prophecy of Jesus was in the process of being fulfilled in Acts 13:46 and in Acts 18:6 (it was a transitional period) and was possibly finally fulfilled in Acts 28:28.

As for the gathering of literal Israel, they have been coming into the new covenant by coming unto Christ and by making covenants with the Lord in his temples for a few years now (and those are among the first steps in the Lord recovering the remnant of his people for the “second time”), so I would guess that a change has already occurred. 

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

But at the same time, I see several "times of the Gentiles" which have a beginning and end 
depending on how it's used in the scripture.

One was fulfilled when Jerusalem was encompassed by armies and then destroyed (around 70 A.D.).

That would be the opposite of the “times of the Gentiles” being fulfilled, because Jesus said the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD was the kickoff for their final scattering of Israel, and that a gathering couldn’t even begin until the “times of the Gentiles”.

There are only two places in the Bible where “times of the Gentiles” or “fulness of the Gentiles” is mentioned, and neither of them suggest that they were beginning or ending at other times.  The apostle Paul, who referred to himself as the “apostle of the Gentiles” and is therefore one of the most likely candidates for when one of “times of the Gentiles” might be started doesn’t even link his statement about the future coming in of “the fulness of the Gentiles” with himself and his lifetime.  And Jesus portrays the “times of the Gentiles” as happening at a time after Jerusalem would no longer be trodden down by the Gentiles.  So having multiple “times of the Gentiles” doesn’t make sense biblically or historically.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

Another was when the Jews rejected the gospel as a nation and then it was taken to the Gentiles. 
This has been going on since Jesus gave the Great Commission – to go into all the world and preach 
the gospel.

Not exactly.  When Jesus gave the Great Commission, the apostles were still told to go to the Jews (the Jews that were in “all the world”).  It wasn’t until a few years later when Peter was told that he could also preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts chapter 10).  But even after that time they still had preference to go to the Jews first, and then later to the Gentiles.  Even Paul, the “apostle of the Gentiles” said it was “necessary” for him to go to the Jews first (Acts 13:46), and later he went to the Gentiles. 

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

Maybe another time is the future when all the nations come up to Jerusalem for battle and the Lord 
returns (Zechariah 14:4).

This is a big stretch.  The events of Zechariah 14 have no connection with the prophecy of Jesus about Jerusalem being trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.  In Zechariah 14, Jerusalem isn’t destroyed, and the Israelites are not scattered (as described by Jesus in Luke 21:24), but the LORD fights their battle for them and saves Jerusalem at his coming.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

You said previously the recent reoccupation of Jerusalem is just a starting point.

A starting point for what?

For those members of the tribes of Israel who are being gathered and assembled by recognizing their identity by coming unto Christ and making covenants with God in his temples, it lays the groundwork for the eventual return of those tribes to lands of their inheritance.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

In your 01/25/2024 reply, you said "Furthermore, Jesus says in these verses that they will remain 
in this scattered state "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled".

Christ's reference to "they" is about all of Israel, not just several tribes.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75619-are-there-biblical-scriptures-that-my-lds-friends-believe-refer-specifically-and-only-to-the-lds-church/page/4/#comment-1210174694

That was my point as well.  ALL of Israel was scattered at that point in time and would remain scattered until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, and that also indicates that the individual mentioned in Isaiah 11:10 can’t be Christ because he hasn’t returned yet and the gathering has already begun.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

So do you believe the Israelites will be in a scattered state (in spiritual darkness) until after 
the Gentiles have rejected it (until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled) – until the fulness 
of the Gentiles be come in (Romans 11:25)?

The 3-volume set of "Doctrines of Salvation" says on page 103:

ANCIENT COVENANTS RENEWED. The Jews continued, possessing the land of Palestine until after the 
days of Christ. Then, because of their wickedness and the fact that they had risen up against the 
Son of God, they too were scattered among the nations of the earth and became a hiss and a byword, 
and were so to remain until, the Lord says, the times of the gentiles shall be fulfilled. Now the 
Jews are being gathered again, because the times of the gentiles are coming to their close.

Again, it isolates Jews from all the tribes.

https://josephsmithfoundation.org/doctrines-of-salvation/

This seems to indicate that the gathering of Israel occurs before the fulness of the Gentiles be 
come in.

Actually, it indicates that there is a transitional phase when both are happening at the same time, the same way it transitioned from taking the gospel first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles in New Testament times (as I described using examples from the book of Acts earlier in my post).  

After Peter was shown that the gospel could be taken to the Gentiles in Acts 10, the gospel was still taken first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles.  In the book of Acts, the apostle Paul’s ministry practice was always to first go to the synagogues in every city to preach to the Jews first, and then later to the Gentiles.  

But in our day and age, that process is reversed.  As it says in Doctrine and Covenants 107:34–35:  “The Seventy are to act in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Twelve or the traveling high council, in building up the church and regulating all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles and then to the Jews— The Twelve being sent out, holding the keys, to open the door by the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and first unto the Gentiles and then unto the Jews.”

That process has been happening for some time and literal Israel is being gathered by them coming to Christ and making covenants with him in his temples, and covenant keeping precedes them being able to return to the lands of their inheritance (if they so desire) in the future.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

Do you believe the LDS Church had the fulness of the gospel in 1830 or do you believe the "fulness" 
is the Book of Mormon plus the Pearl of Great Price plus the Doctrine and Covenants + all else that 
you believe God reveals after 1978 (even though not canonized)? Like the fulness is not full yet 
but a work in progress?

The Church had the fulness of the gospel in 1830.  The restoration of covenants and additional priesthood keys happened in the years that followed.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

The other writings are as you said, to grow and protect the Christian community and faith.  But 
all these things do not constitute the gospel – the good news.  The gospel is simply John 3:16.

John 3:16 isn’t the gospel, it is an introduction to the gospel.  The gospel is summarized in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and Romans 1:1-6.  It entails all those things.

But the other writings are essential to help us understand how the apostles directed the workings of Christ’s church in the administration of the gospel of Christ.  Those who believed in Christ were baptized and added to Christ’s church and cared for in the body of members.  And the apostles were there to lead and direct the church and keep the unity of the faith and to guard against being led away into every wind of doctrine.  And tragically, that’s exactly what happened after the apostles were killed.  Having the Bible alone without the direction of the divinely appointed leaders of the church has led to “every wind of doctrine”, with everyone going their own way with each person to their own interpretation, doing their own thing.  

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

Yes.  Jesus established his church.

Yes, he did, and he organized it with a divinely appointed leadership.  But Jesus and the apostles also foretold that there would be an apostasy, that wolves would enter in among the overseers of the church, not sparing the flock.  That part is also in the Bible.  

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

It depends on if you believe and worship a Jesus who is the first spirit children of heavenly 
parents who progressed into becoming a God in some celestial home.

Do you worship a God who Joseph Smith taught was a man who became a God and who was not God from 
everlasting to everlasting?  Is this a different God than a God who has always existed as God?
Definitely.  Can we know from scripture which God is true?  Definitely.

The Jesus of Jehovah's Witnesses is Michael the Archangel.  I don't worship that Jesus.

Several false religions have arisen throughout time.  They all started with some truth but then 
added a little bit of error about who God is. Look no further than Hinduism's elephant-headed
God called Ganesha.

Here's a hypothetical conversation between two friends living in Los Angeles, Mike and Helen. Only 
a mile separates them. Tim, the basketball player, lives within 2 miles of each of them. 

Mike: "Hi Helen, tonight I'm going to Tim's house.  Want to come?"
Helen: "Sure. What time?"
Mike: "About 8 pm".
Helen: "Can we make it earlier?  It takes me 3 hours to drive to Tim's place from my house because
of all the traffic".
Mike: "Huh? Tim only lives 2 miles away".
Helen: "Really. I thought Tim lived in San Diego?"
Mike: "No.  He lives very close to us.  I thought you said you knew him?"
Helen: "Sure I know him.  I met him a few days ago.  He was nice enough to give me his football 
jersey after getting the MVP award in the Rose Ball for throwing the winning touchdown with seconds 
left in the game."
Mike: "Huh?  No. Tim only plays basketball. I don't know your Tim".

Mike and Helen are not speaking about the same Tim. One Tim keeps you in Los Angeles. The other
Tim brings you to San Diego.

That’s a nicely contrived story to fit your narrative, but it has no relationship to our discussion about who God is and what we both believe about him.

Let me retell that story with a more accurate connection to our discussion about our beliefs in the God of the Bible.

• Cathy: “Hi, Evan, what are you doing?”
• Evan: “I was just rereading that book that Tim wrote about himself.  That Tim guy is a real loner.”
• Cathy: “Yeah, I read Tim’s book too, and I know what you mean.”
• Evan: “I’ve heard all my friends say the same thing about Tim, and I agree with them.”
• Ammon walks up to where Cathy and Evan are talking. 
• Ammon: “Hi, Cathy and Evan, what’s up?”
• Evan: “We were just discussing that book that Tim wrote, he was a real loner.”
• Ammon: “What?  I read Tim’s book too, and I never got that impression about him.”
• Cathy: “He says that he’s a loner in the book.”
• Ammon: “He doesn’t say he’s a loner, you are misinterpreting what he said.  Tim says he’s one of a kind and nobody else compares to him in his skills.  That doesn’t mean he’s alone, it just means he’s at the top of his field of work.” 
• Evan: “No, he’s a loner.  I read his book, and what I’m saying is the truth.  And I have heard the same thing from all my friends.”
• Cathy: “Yes, me too, I agree with Evan.”
• Evan: “Ammon, you must not know Tim like we do, you obviously haven’t read his book.”
• Ammon: “I have read his book too and I am familiar with everything Tim says about himself there.  But there’s more to know about Tim than what he says in his book.  I have a friend who called Tim on the phone and Tim came to visit him in person, and my friend has had many discussions with him.  My friend says Tim has a whole family living with him.  His book says that too if you’ve read all of it.”
• Evan: “We have Tim’s book.  And I’ll stick with what my friends say too.”
• Ammon: “You can even call Tim up yourself and ask him if what I’m saying is true.”
• Evan: “We don’t need to do that, we already know all we need to know about Tim from his book, and his book says he is a loner, so we don’t need your opinion or believe anything your friend says about Tim.”

In this story all three participants are talking about the same person named “Tim”, the same Tim that wrote the book about himself.  And all of them have read Tim’s book and rely on Tim’s book to support their different views. But Cathy and Evan have misinterpreted parts of Tim’s book and are also relying on things their friends have said about Tim.  They are hard set in their opinions about Tim, and they aren’t willing to even consider the evidence that Ammon provided to them.  They won’t consider the possibility that they have misinterpreted some of the things that Tim wrote.

Now let’s get away from the hypothetical conversations and talk about reality.  

The Oneness Pentecostals state that “The Bible speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as different manifestations, roles, modes, titles, attributes, relationships to man, or functions of the one God, but it does not refer to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three persons, personalities, wills, minds, or Gods.” (The Oneness of God, by David K. Bernard, J.D. – Series in Pentecostal Theology, Volume 1).   And according to Oneness Pentecostals, “Sola Scriptura is of the essence of Pentecostalism”, and use the Bible as the source for all of their doctrines (see Pentecostals and Sola Scriptura). 

For Jehovah’s Witnesses, they “worship the one true and Almighty God, the Creator, whose name is Jehovah.”  And for Jesus they “have learned from the Bible that Jesus is not Almighty God and that there is no Scriptural basis for the Trinity doctrine.—John 14:28.”   And they say they “base our beliefs on all 66 of its books, which include both the ‘Old Testament’ and the ‘New Testament.’ Professor Jason D. BeDuhn aptly described it when he wrote that Jehovah’s Witnesses built ‘their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there.’”  (What Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe?).

And I affirm that the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are in complete harmony with the Holy Bible.  In fact, I proclaim that Latter-day Saints believe in and adhere to the doctrines and teachings of the Holy Bible more completely and in greater harmony than any other religion on the planet (as far as I am aware).  

And you also claim to get your beliefs from the Bible.

Given that we all (Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter-day Saints, and you [whatever you are], and many other denominations of Christianity that have differing doctrines) say that our teachings conform to the doctrines of the Bible, how do you decide which interpretation of the Bible is correct?

God obviously knows what is the correct doctrine, and God lives and hasn't changed, and I believe he continues to speak to us today (the same as in Bible times), and this is the very reason Jesus has restored his church and directs it by revelation through his divinely appointed prophet and apostles, just as he did in New Testament times.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

The Latter-day Saints have a different Jesus.  This is why Paul was warning about those who would 
come and preach a different Jesus and a different gospel.

Actually, Paul warned against those who preach of “another Jesus, whom we have not preached” (2 Corinthians 11:4) or of “any other gospel… than that which we have preached unto you”.  The apostles went out personally to teach the gospel in all the congregations of the church.  And Latter-day Saints teach of the very same Jesus that Paul and the apostles taught, and the same gospel that Paul and the apostles taught.  We believe and teach every single thing the Bible teaches about God the Father and Jesus Christ.

But when Paul warned of these things, he also knew that apostasy was coming to the church, and he even expressed some surprise that it was coming into the church even before the apostles were gone, for he said to the Galatians, “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel” (Galatians 1:6).

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

On 9/1/2024 at 12:00 AM, InCognitus said:

And Christians throughout Christian history have had differing views and teachings about God, and some of the teachings were later additions.

Yes. They deviated from scripture and deceived those who did not hold on to the truth.

Except they didn’t deviate from scripture.  They used scripture to support their views.  Read the links from the writings of the early Christians that I posted last time.  And those are the writings of Christians who lived the closest to Jesus and the apostles.  Do you think the Christians that came after them didn’t deviate from scripture when Constantine added the word “homoousios” to the Nicene creed, making the Father and Son one in substance?  

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

On 9/1/2024 at 12:00 AM, InCognitus said:

Now when examining these vastly different views about God through Christian history, which of them (if any) were worshipping “a false god”?  (Or is that even a valid question?)  Was it the earlier Christians?  Or the latter Christians that based their tradition upon a later creed?  And how would you know which view was right?  We could take what they taught and compare it to scripture, but the earliest Christian writers backed up everything they taught with scripture. The earlier Christians also had the benefit of living closer to the time of Jesus and the apostles, so they could have held to an apostolic tradition that had a more inspired interpretation of scripture, but the later views seem to benefit from the fact that the majority of modern Christians hold to the later tradition.  But how does the majority view help us in determining what is true?  I don’t think that helps, because Jesus taught, “strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:14).  So how would you know?

I would recommend staying with the scripture.

I don’t think you really mean that.  For example, you have been trying to justify the fact that your church has women participating in the priesthood for some time now, and you have no biblical backing for that practice whatsoever.  But as you demonstrated last time, you rationalize the belief by imposing your suppositions back into scripture.  Such rationalizations are dangerous, and can lead to all kinds of deviated doctrines (including teaching that Jesus has returned as woman, as was done in the Shakers in the 18th century and more recently in the "Eastern Lightning" group today).  And for your other teachings, you take a lot of verses out of context to support your views and don’t seem to acknowledge verses in the Bible that contradict your beliefs (like the existence of other gods, for example).

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

Here is just one of them.  The key words are know, 
believe, and understand.

"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".

As you already know from my post to your post in the General Handbook thread, you and I have discussed this verse previously.

I asked this in the other thread, and I ask this again here:  What does it mean for God to say “before me” or “after me” in this verse?  God is eternal, so there is no such thing as a “before” or “after” to an eternal God.  So what could that possibly mean?

The context tells us what this "before" or "after" means, and for you to use the verse to claim that it says nobody else can become a “god” is imposing a modern Christian preconception upon the Israelites in the 8th century BCE and are taking Isaiah 43:10 completely out of its context.  You need to consider the verses in the perspective of the times, according to the world view of the recipients of the message.  

In these verses YHWH is speaking in the context of the idol worship that was rampant in that period of Israelite history.  As a great portion of the book of Isaiah (and much of the Old Testament) attests, the Israelites were constantly influenced by the worship of graven images (see for example in the prior chapter, Isaiah 42:17).  I will try to explain the verses in their proper context below (all verses below are from Isaiah chapter 43, starting with verse 8):

• 8 "Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears.  
• 9 "Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this, and shew us former things?  let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth".

These verses show that Israel (the blind who have eyes, and the deaf who have ears – see Isaiah 42:18-20) and the heathen nations are summoned together and are challenged to produce evidence of the power and foreknowledge they claim for their gods.  The heathen nations who worship the idols are unable to do this.

• 10 "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".

Of the nations gathered together, Israel is YHWH's witness because they have seen his mighty works.  As they now dwell among the nations of idol worshipers, Israel is to understand that YHWH is their God alone, and the idols of the nations are powerless.  Even though the heathen nations try to form idols of worship to rule over men, according to YHWH these "gods" are not recognized.  In other words, before YHWH was made known to Israel there was no true God formed by craft of men, neither shall there be any true God formed by the craft of men after him.  (As Isaiah says in the next chapter,44:9-10; "They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.  Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?")

• 11 "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."

Jesus, the LORD (YHWH, or Jehovah) alone is the savior of Israel.  The graven images of the heathen nations cannot save.

• 12 "I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God".

This verse notes the point of "before" and "after", when the LORD declared himself to Israel and when there was "no strange god among" them.  All of the mighty works of YHWH were manifest unto Israel when they were not yet within the influence of the nations of idol worshippers, when there was no strange god among them, and therefore they can be sure witnesses for YHWH, since they can clearly discern that the works that were shown unto them were the works of YHWH and not of idols.

The bottom line is that there is only one God of Israel, there is no other.  And no other being can become the God of Israel, not before he declared himself to Israel, neither after that time.

So clearly these verses are not denying the ontological existence of other deities, nor are they saying that nobody else can become a god.  This is obviously not the case because elsewhere scripture affirms that other gods exist when saying that God is the “God of gods” (as in Deut 10:17), or when scripture says “Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works” (Psalm 86:8).  Rather, Isaiah 43:8-12 is denying the relevance of these other gods to Israel.  There is only one God to Israel and none else.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

While I don't accept the LDS scriptures on the same level as the Bible, there is enough truth in 
them to show that even the major characteristics of Jesus Christ in them is not the Jesus being 
taught in LDS Church manuals.  The Book of Mormon even says that Heavenly Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Ghost is one God, not three Gods.

But this just demonstrates that you are foisting the later doctrinal explanation as imposed by Constantine into the Nicene creed (to define how God the Father and Jesus Christ are “one”) upon Latter-day Saint doctrine instead of using the actual biblical explanation that Jesus and the apostles gave us for how they are “one” in the New Testament.  In John 17:11 and John 17:20-23, Jesus prayed for his disciples, “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us… that they may be one, even as we are one:  I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one”.  If the disciples can be “one” with Jesus and the Father in the exact same way Jesus is one with his Father, then there is no need to try to redefine how the Father and Son are “one” by using a creed with the word inserted by Constantine to say they are “homoousios” (consubstantial).

This was also the view of the pre-Nicene Christians. Origen (circa AD 185-254) wrote (in his apologetic response to the accusations of Celsus) something about how the Father and the Son are "one” and describes them to be one in unity and NOT one in being:

"In what follows, some may imagine that he says something plausible against us.  'If,' says he, 'these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others.  But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offence against God if they worship also His servant.'  To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying, 'I and My Father are one,' [John 10:30] and the words used in prayer by the Son of God, 'As Thou and I are one,' [John 17:22] he would not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God.  'For,' says He, 'My Father is in Me, and I in Him.' [John 14:11 and John 17:21]  And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, 'And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,' [Acts 4:32] that he may understand the meaning of the saying, 'I and My Father are one.'  We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid.  And we do not 'reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared,' as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, 'Before Abraham was, I am.' [John 8:58]  Again He says, 'I am the truth;' [John 14:6] and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared.  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 they are 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".  (Origen Against Celsus, Book VIII, Chap. XII)

So there is good reason that the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 31:21, Mormon 7:7) and Doctrine and Covenants (section 20 verse 28) says that the “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end”.  It is not that they are “one” in the unbiblical sense of being “homoousios” (consubstantial), but rather they are “one God” in unity of thought and will, just as we are to be “one” with Jesus and his Father.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

The context of Amos 8:11 is the land of Israel though. I gather that from verse 14.  But I believe 
it was mostly for the northern kingdom, where Amos (from the southern kingdom) went to.

But, it’s not just focusing only on verse 14, it also includes verse 12 which says: “And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.”  Of course this would include the land of Israel, but it’s obviously not limited to the land of Israel.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

I don't see a reason for God to add more to the Bible.  What we have there is sufficient to know 
for eternal life.  We don't need to know 100% of what God knows. We just need to know what He wants 
us to know.

If the Bible was sufficient and all we need to know, then we wouldn’t have so many groups who claim to follow the Bible teaching such diverse doctrines (as explained earlier).  We definitely need further guidance from God on these matters.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

Hopefully the new light for the LDS Church in Doctrines and Covenants does further contradict the 
previous light.

Here are a few examples:

Doctrine and Covenants 20:17 – By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is 
infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of 
heaven and earth, and all things which are in them.

Doctrine and Covenants 39:1 – Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity 
to all eternity, the Great I AM, even Jesus Christ.

This is the true God.

And none of the above contradicts anything that came later.  

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

On 9/1/2024 at 12:00 AM, InCognitus said:

That’s a rather creative interpretation of the verse.

Amos says “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.”  (Amos 8:11–12)

That’s not about people rejecting the words of the Lord already written in the Bible, on the contrary.  It is saying that they are seeking the word of the Lord and they can’t find it. They have no place to “hear the words of the Lord”.  And this is obviously not talking about the words of scripture (they have always had that), this would be the word of the Lord directly from the Lord himself as given through prophets.  It is as Isaiah said, “For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.”  (Isaiah 29:10)

Expand  

If I did not address this sufficiently in my previous comments about Amos 8, let me know and I'll 
try again.

At least this time you’re not trying to say that the famine is “people rejecting the words of the Lord already written in the Bible”. 

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

I don't see the "them" of Zechariah 10:6-12 as solely the tribe of Ephraim.  All the tribes of 
Israel are collectively revealed in verse 6.  The entire chapter is about the northern and southern 
kingdoms.

Ephraim (as a tribe) is the head of the northern tribes, but all the northern tribes would be included.  I mentioned this in my post on 09/04/2024 in the other thread.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

If you want to focus solely on the tribe of Ephraim, then one could do likewise in Zechariah 10:3 
(where Judah is God's flock and his goodly horse in battle) and Isaiah 5:7 (where the vineyard of 
the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel and the men of Judah are his pleasant plant).

In your case, God sowing Joseph Smith (a Gentile) among the Gentiles if I recall.  

I wonder if God sowing Gentiles (then having them declared to be in the literal lineage of Abraham) 
and having them work among the Gentiles (yet to be declared to be in the lineage of Abraham) 
qualifies too.  Or maybe actual Israelites are being sown among the Gentiles.

Actual Israelites are being sown among the Gentiles, and they are called “Gentiles”, remember?  In Genesis 48:19, it says (of Jacob blessing Ephraim):  "And his father refused and said, I know it, my son, I know it; he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of Gentiles."  Joseph Smith is included in that.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

I wanted to know how you understand 1 Peter 2:5,9:

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up 
spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ". 

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye 
should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous 
light". 

What parts do you believe apply to an LDS high priest and which do not apply to LDS females?

We already discussed this and you are trying to reboot the conversation again.  See our prior conversations on this topic from June 23 2023, June 29 2023, June 30 2023, July 4 2023, July 6 2023, July 16 2023, July 18 2023, July 24 2023, March 03 2024, March 16 2024, May 18 2024, May 27 2024, June 09 2024, Aug 18 2024, and Sept 01 2024.

[JVW]

18 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The Church had the fulness of the gospel in 1830.  The restoration of covenants and additional priesthood keys happened in the years that followed.

When you say "the fulness of the gospel" do you mean Article of Faith 4? The fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ is: faith in the Lord, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and endure to the end? Or is there more to the fulness of the gospel than that?

[InCognitus]

6 hours ago, JVW said:

On 9/22/2024 at 9:41 PM, InCognitus said:

The Church had the fulness of the gospel in 1830.  The restoration of covenants and additional priesthood keys happened in the years that followed.

When you say "the fulness of the gospel" do you mean Article of Faith 4? The fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ is: faith in the Lord, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and endure to the end? Or is there more to the fulness of the gospel than that?

I had the Book of Mormon in mind when I wrote that the Church had the fulness of the gospel in 1830, and of course the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel.  I consider the fulness of the gospel to be a fuller understanding of the atonement of Jesus Christ which is taught all through the Book of Mormon.   

In the Book of Mormon, Jesus defined his gospel this way:  

"Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.  And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me" (3 Nephi 27:13–14).

Jesus continued on in that chapter to talk about the importance of faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end, which is all part of the fulness of the gospel as well.

[theplains]

On 9/13/2024 at 5:37 PM, CV75 said:

I don't think his entire message in the Chapter was limited to these few words. Whatever we do in applying the teachings and ordinances of His servants (whom he mentions alongside Christ) as they rule and preside in His Church confesses and lauds Christ. Of course we confess and laud Him first and foremost, and part of honoring Him is to  hearken to His servants called to the holy priesthood order.

The LDS Church teaches Joseph Smith is [most likely] the root and the rod of Isaiah 11. See pages 
283-284 of the 2001 edition of Religion 324-325 - Doctrines and Covenants Student Manual.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32493_eng.pdf

Where do you see Joseph Smith in any verse of Romans 15:8-13?

[CV75]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

The LDS Church teaches Joseph Smith is [most likely] the root and the rod of Isaiah 11. See pages 
283-284 of the 2001 edition of Religion 324-325 - Doctrines and Covenants Student Manual.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32493_eng.pdf

Where do you see Joseph Smith in any verse of Romans 15:8-13?

Sorry, too much time passes between exchanges so I'm not fully engaged. But since Paul's spiritual language speaks on two or three levels, metaphorically and literally, there is plenty of room for Joseph Smith to get represented. But since D&C 113 and Romans 15 tie to Isaiah 11, it would seem that they all tie in to each other and support the prophecies concerning Christ and Joseph Smith, and even others in general supporting roles as Paul suggested.

 

[theplains]

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

I noticed that the seed of Abraham represents three different things in Abraham 2:9-11 (not just two).  

You have a knack for ignoring context, and it seems that you totally missed verse 10:  “And I will bless them through thy name; for as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father” (Abraham 2:10).

I know about the seed of Abraham being one of adoption (both men and women, whether they are 
literal descendants or not; Galatians 3:29).  I was specifically focusing on where the POGP uses 
the phrase "in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood)".  This is the part that excludes women as the 
Latter-day Saints understand the royal priesthood of the New Testament.
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

“Abraham was promised his ‘literal seed,’ meaning his descendants, would bear the priesthood

Yes. That is how I understand it.  That aspect of seed (priesthood) is based on literal lineage 
as Abraham 2:11 says.  Maybe that would explain why patriarchal blessings are given – so a 
Latter-day Saint can be declared to be of a certain lineage of an Israelite tribe.  Supposedly 
their blood changes into the literal blood of Abraham when acted upon by the Holy Ghost like the 
church seminary manual teaches.

But then on the other hand, I understand that while the original biblical priesthood (Aaronic) 
followed lineage, the LDS conferral of the Aaronic Priesthood is not dependent on lineage now. 
It is bestowed upon worthy male members generally starting at the age of 12, regardless of their 
family background or lineage.
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

This is the same backward logic you tried to use several times before.  Obviously what you say above is wrong given the context as explained above.

In 1 Peter 2:5,9 Peter is emphasizing that all believers, not just a distinct class or group,
have direct access to God without needing a human intermediary, which was a shift from the Old 
Testament system, where only the Levites served as priests. This priesthood involves offering 
"spiritual sacrifices," which can be understood as acts of praise, thanksgiving, good deeds, 
and living a holy life dedicated to God's service.

Women offer up spiritual sacrifices too.

The term "royal" highlights the dignity and authority that come from being associated with Christ 
the King. As members of this royal priesthood, Christians are called to be mediators of God's 
grace in the world, works of goodness, and proclaimers of His greatness.

This teaching highlights a profound aspect of Christian identity and mission, where every believer 
is called to participate in the work of God's kingdom, reflecting the priesthood of all believers—a 
central principle of Christian doctrine. It's a beautiful reminder of how God elevates and empowers 
His followers to live out a purpose that is both sacred and transformative.

Yes, women are included in the "royal priesthood". In the context of the New Testament, the concept 
of a royal priesthood encompasses all who believe in and follow Jesus Christ, regardless of gender. 
This inclusive approach aligns with the broader New Testament message that emphasizes faith and 
devotion to Christ as the criteria for participation in the blessings and responsibilities of the 
Christian life.

The teachings of the apostles, particularly Paul, emphasize that in Christ, there is neither male 
nor female—everyone is equal in God's eyes (Galatians 3:28). This equality extends to all areas of 
spiritual life and service. Women, alongside men, are called to serve, worship, and minister within 
the community of believers, reflecting the divine image and carrying out the mission of the Church.
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

And Doctrine and Covenants 107:40-41 discusses the patriarchal order of the priesthood from Adam to Noah.  It was a patriarchal order prior to the law of Moses (we discussed that previously, see my post on 03/16/2024),

Does that mean no one held the Melchizedek priesthood between Adam and Moses?
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

1 Nephi 15:13–14:  “And now, the thing which our father meaneth concerning the grafting in of the natural branches through the fulness of the Gentiles, is, that in the latter days, when our seed shall have dwindled in unbelief, yea, for the space of many years, and many generations after the Messiah shall be manifested in body unto the children of men, then shall the fulness of the gospel of the Messiah come unto the Gentiles, and from the Gentiles unto the remnant of our seed— And at that day shall the remnant of our seed know that they are of the house of Israel, and that they are the covenant people of the Lord;

Jesus said Israel would be "led away captive into all the nations… until the times of the Gentiles 
be fulfilled.

You said in a previous reply "The times of the Gentiles is when the fulness of the gospel is 
restored unto the Gentiles, as it began when Christ's church was restored to the earth in the 
early 1800's.

Do you equate the "fulness of the Gentiles" with the "times of the Gentiles"?
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

When Israel was recovered the “first time”, they were first “gathered” and “assembled” to Sinai (the temple, the mountain of the Lord) to become a people of God and make covenants with him.  It wasn’t until they made their covenants and understood their identity as a “people” of God that they were allowed to go into the lands of their inheritance.  The exact same process happens today.  Israel receiving their covenants in the temples of the Lord and recognizing themselves as a people of God is part of the process of “gathering” and “assembling”.  The land inheritance comes later.

Do you believe the religious Israelites around the world don't view themselves as the people of 
God?

We don't build temples because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost.

Speaking of land inheritance - 1 Nephi 2:20 says the Lord promised Nephi that he will be led to 
a "land of promise," which is described as a land prepared by the Lord that is better than all 
other lands. In 2 Nephi 1:5-9, Lehi speaks to his family about the land they have been led to, 
describing it as a land of inheritance granted to them by God, where they shall be kept from 
other nations if they are obedient to God's commandments.

We don't know if anything like this happened or where this land was.  But let's assume this is 
somewhere in America.

What about those of Ephraim who were led to other places around the world, like China or Russia.  
Would these be their lands of inheritance?
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Actually, you agreed (biblically speaking) that Ephraim was allotted the “entire world”, remember?:

Yes, I remember.  I mentioned it sarcastically.  I don't believe the tribes of Israel will be 
allotted the entire world.  The promise of their land inheritance is already mentioned in the 
Bible.

Following the sarcastic logic would mean that all the Israelite tribes would be allotted the 
entire world or only Ephraim would inherit the entire world.
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Which version of “the entire world” would exclude America?

None. 
 
Besides Ephraim, do you believe any other tribe inherits all of America from north to south?
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Where do you find the Bible saying anything about “not America”?

I would like to rephrase the question: Where do you find the Bible saying anything about "America" 
for lands of inheritance for the Israelites?

Answer: In all the places the Bible says their land of inheritance is Israel.

There are many but I'll just give you a few: Joshua 1:6; 11:23;  12:6-7; 13:7-8; 14:1-5; 1 
Chronicles 16:18; 17:9; 28:8; 2 Chronicles 33:4,7-8.

Lands of inheritance is mentioned in the Book of Mormon but the locations are purely speculation.  
There is a land of inheritance in Doctrine and Covenants 57:1-5; 58:44-45, which refers to Missouri. 
Then along came a [supposed] "revelation" and expanded this to all of America. While the Book of 
Mormon identifies a "promised land" for its key populations, it does not declare that this 
encompasses all of North, Central, and South America. 
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

And Isaiah 11:10-16 sets up an association between the coming of the “root of Jesse” and the setting up of the ensign of the people and the beginning of the gathering.  The gathering has started, so obviously the servants of Christ have come and the ensign has been established.

How do you understand the term "root of Jesse"?
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Obviously neither of these examples count as one of the gathering “times”, since the Lord didn’t include them in his count in Isaiah 11:11 when he says he will recover them “the second time”.

I expect the second time is fulfilled in Ezekiel 37:22 ("And I will make them one nation in the 
land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no 
more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all").
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

What you seem to continue to ignore or don’t understand is that Jacob passed on to Joseph the blessing from God given to him, saying to Joseph that the “blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors… they shall be on the head of Joseph” (Genesis 49:22-26).  That blessing was that “thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 28:14).  You are putting limits on the blessing that God gave to Jacob and upon the head of Joseph and aren’t looking at everything God promised to them.

God did not give America to Jacob.  

The land God promised to Jacob, also known as Israel, is the land of Canaan. This promise is 
initially given to Abraham and subsequently reaffirmed to his son Isaac and then to his grandson 
Jacob. 

In Genesis 28:13-15, while Jacob is dreaming at Bethel, God confirms to him the covenant He made 
with Abraham, telling Jacob that the land on which he lies, he will give to him and his descendants. 
This land also included land to the east of the Jordan River.

God also reaffirms His promise to Jacob about the land in Genesis 35:9-12.  After Jacob returns 
from Padanaram, God appears to him again at Bethel. Here, God blesses Jacob and reaffirms the 
promise, restating that the land which He gave to Abraham and Isaac, He will also give to Jacob 
and to his descendants after him.

Then in Genesis 48:3-4, Jacob recounts to Joseph how God appeared to him at Luz in the land of 
Canaan and blessed him, saying that He would make him fruitful and multiply him, and make of him 
a multitude of people, and give the land to his descendants after him for an everlasting 
possession. This reiteration of the promise emphasizes the enduring nature of the covenant, 
extending it through Jacob's lineage, which would form the tribes of Israel.

I'm not surprised with your view. Latter-day Saints do the same thing (re-identifying land) with 
their interpretation of Isaiah 2:1-3.
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

As for the gathering of literal Israel, they have been coming into the new covenant by coming unto Christ and by making covenants with the Lord in his temples for a few years now (and those are among the first steps in the Lord recovering the remnant of his people for the “second time”), so I would guess that a change has already occurred.

Israelites have been coming into the new covenant since the days of Christ.  Making covenants in 
the temple in Jerusalem was not a requirement.  

However, it's been since 1948 that the Israelites are beginning to return to their land of 
inheritance. To my knowledge, the LDS Church and other churches do not actively participate in 
this gathering in the way that Jewish organizations might.
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

And Jesus portrays the “times of the Gentiles” as happening at a time after Jerusalem would no longer be trodden down by the Gentiles.

That's not what Jesus said.   You're forgetting a few verses before, which add context.

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is 
nigh … Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be 
fulfilled".  

The times of the Gentiles, in this case, is fulfilled (ends) when Jerusalem is no longer compassed 
by armies and trodden down.  The "until" indicates that the situation of Jerusalem being compassed 
with armies and trodden down is a temporary condition that lasts up to the moment the times of the 
Gentiles are fulfilled. 

Here's another simple example using a football analogy: "Two teams will play each other in the 
Super Bowl until the game's outcome is fulfilled".

Your logic would make sense if you change Christ's words to "Jerusalem shall be trodden down until 
the times of the Gentiles begin".
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

 Not exactly.  When Jesus gave the Great Commission, the apostles were still told to go to the Jews (the Jews that were in “all the world”).  It wasn’t until a few years later when Peter was told that he could also preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts chapter 10).  But even after that time they still had preference to go to the Jews first, and then later to the Gentiles.  Even Paul, the “apostle of the Gentiles” said it was “necessary” for him to go to the Jews first (Acts 13:46), and later he went to the Gentiles.

Christ's Great Commission to his initial disciples was not to only go to the Jews in the world.  
But yes, their preference was still to go them (all Israelites) first and then to the Gentiles.  
Galatians 2:8 says, "For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the 
circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles".  But this doesn't preclude them 
from preaching in a reverse sense and not also being effective.

Paul did preach to both Israelites and Gentiles simultaneously during his missionary journeys. 
His approach often involved first going to the synagogue to preach to the Israelites. If his 
message was rejected by them in the synagogue, he would then turn to the Gentiles. This pattern 
is highlighted in several passages in the Acts of the Apostles.  If they accepted him in the 
synagogue, he would still preach to the Gentiles.  It was an "Israel and Gentile" evangelism, 
not an "If not Israel, then Gentile" evangelism.

For example, in Acts 13:46-48, during Paul's first missionary journey in Pisidian Antioch, after 
facing rejection from the Jews, Paul and Barnabas declared: "It was necessary that the word of God 
should first have been spoken to you. But seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy 
of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, ‘I 
have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of 
the earth.'" This shows that they intentionally focused on both groups, starting with the Jews and 
then moving to the Gentiles when faced with opposition.

Paul's ministry reflects his understanding of himself as an "apostle to the Gentiles," yet he 
never abandoned his hope and effort to reach his fellow Jews with the gospel of Jesus Christ. His 
strategy of initially preaching to the Jews signifies the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel, 
followed by the inclusion of the Gentiles as part of God's plan to bless all nations through 
Christ.

The vision in Acts 10 is to correct Peter's view of the Gentile.  He was still stuck in his view 
that Gentiles should not be recipients of the gospel. This vision was revealed to Peter to teach 
him that the gospel was not to be withheld from the Gentiles. 

Let's examine the verses:

"And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat". 
"But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean". 
"And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou 
common".

This is not God tell Peter that now is the time for Gentiles to start receiving the gospel.  God
had already cleansed both Israelites and Gentiles with the Atonement. 

Prior to his crucifixion, Jesus taught his disciples "And other sheep I have, which are not of 
this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and 
one shepherd".

Christ's mission extends to all people, including Gentiles.

The light bulb finally turns on in the heads of the disciples as we find out in Acts 11:18 ("When 
they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to 
the Gentiles granted repentance unto life").

This wasn't the first instance where the disciples had difficulty understanding Christ's message. 
Despite listening to him discuss his death and resurrection, they still didn't get it. Fortunately, 
they eventually came to understand it.

I think the vision in Acts 10 could also be extended to the dietary laws - which had symbolically 
separated Jews from Gentiles.

As we find out later, Peter was still stuck on his older views on eating food.  This is seen in 
Galatians 2:1-14. Paul rebukes Peter for withdrawing from eating with Gentile believers when some 
Jews came, fearing criticism from those who insisted on the necessity of circumcision and adherence 
to Jewish customs.

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For 
before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he 
began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who 
belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that by their 
hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth 
of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, 'You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile 
and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?'"

Persecution forced early Christians to flee from Jerusalem and other centers, leading them to
various regions where they spread the teachings of Jesus Christ.
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

For those members of the tribes of Israel who are being gathered and assembled by recognizing their identity by coming unto Christ and making covenants with God in his temples, it lays the groundwork for the eventual return of those tribes to lands of their inheritance.

New Testament Christians (either Israelite or Gentile) were not making covenants in the Jerusalem 
temple.

Oddly enough, you don't find any specific scriptural mention of Nephites making covenants in their 
temples either.
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

But in our day and age, that process is reversed.  As it says in Doctrine and Covenants 107:34–35:  “The Seventy are to act in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Twelve or the traveling high council, in building up the church and regulating all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles and then to the Jews— The Twelve being sent out, holding the keys, to open the door by the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and first unto the Gentiles and then unto the Jews.”

Seventy became Seventies.  We never hear about Seventy(s) in the Bible after the initial sending 
out by Jesus or any such commission in the Book of Mormon.

But for the D&C 107 part, was this first unto all the Gentiles and only then unto the Israelites 
when the fulness of Gentiles has come in?
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

The Church had the fulness of the gospel in 1830.  The restoration of covenants and additional priesthood keys happened in the years that followed.

Which of the restored covenants are not included in the 1830 version of the fulness of the gospel?
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Having the Bible alone without the direction of the divinely appointed leaders of the church has led to “every wind of doctrine”, with everyone going their own way with each person to their own interpretation, doing their own thing.

The Jehovah's Witnesses rely on their Governing Body to understand the Bible.

Latter-day Saints also relied on their appointed leaders in the past to interpret the Bible and 
Pearl of Great Price. Unfortunately they came up with a reason to deny some the Priesthood.  "The 
Way to Perfection", written by a former LDS President, portrays how the church interpreted 
scripture and came up with their policy.  The Journal of Discourses, which includes contributions 
from Brigham Young, also provides some insights. 

The LDS Church was living in dark days during that era.  Pardon the pun.  

The present-day church tries to disavow what they call theories of the past.  But they cannot erase 
history.  That history presents them as direction from the Lord.    I'm not surprised that the 
church has chosen not to reproduce old Mormon teaching texts of the past.
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, he did, and he organized it with a divinely appointed leadership.  But Jesus and the apostles also foretold that there would be an apostasy, that wolves would enter in among the overseers of the church, not sparing the flock.  That part is also in the Bible.

Yes. I heard that.  That would explain why Gospel Principles referred to it as the destruction 
of the church. Following that logic, using the Book of Mormon and Bible, the church that supposedly 
existed among the Jaredites was destroyed.  And the church among the Nephites was destroyed.  And 
all the churches that Jesus supposedly established among all the tribes he visited (3 Nephi 16:1, 
3 Nephi 17:4) were destroyed too.

The Bible says the gates of hell would not prevail against his church.  This is his church on the 
offense, not defense.

If you think the apostasy mentioned in Acts 20:29 is severe, wait until 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 
occurs.
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

That’s a nicely contrived story to fit your narrative, but it has no relationship to our discussion about who God is and what we both believe about him.

Let me retell that story with a more accurate connection to our discussion about our beliefs in the God of the Bible.

• Cathy: “Hi, Evan, what are you doing?”
• Evan: “I was just rereading that book that Tim wrote about himself.  That Tim guy is a real loner.”
• Cathy: “Yeah, I read Tim’s book too, and I know what you mean.”
• Evan: “I’ve heard all my friends say the same thing about Tim, and I agree with them.”
• Ammon walks up to where Cathy and Evan are talking. 
• Ammon: “Hi, Cathy and Evan, what’s up?”
• Evan: “We were just discussing that book that Tim wrote, he was a real loner.”
• Ammon: “What?  I read Tim’s book too, and I never got that impression about him.”
• Cathy: “He says that he’s a loner in the book.”
• Ammon: “He doesn’t say he’s a loner, you are misinterpreting what he said.  Tim says he’s one of a kind and nobody else compares to him in his skills.  That doesn’t mean he’s alone, it just means he’s at the top of his field of work.” 
• Evan: “No, he’s a loner.  I read his book, and what I’m saying is the truth.  And I have heard the same thing from all my friends.”
• Cathy: “Yes, me too, I agree with Evan.”
• Evan: “Ammon, you must not know Tim like we do, you obviously haven’t read his book.”
• Ammon: “I have read his book too and I am familiar with everything Tim says about himself there.  But there’s more to know about Tim than what he says in his book.  I have a friend who called Tim on the phone and Tim came to visit him in person, and my friend has had many discussions with him.  My friend says Tim has a whole family living with him.  His book says that too if you’ve read all of it.”
• Evan: “We have Tim’s book.  And I’ll stick with what my friends say too.”
• Ammon: “You can even call Tim up yourself and ask him if what I’m saying is true.”
• Evan: “We don’t need to do that, we already know all we need to know about Tim from his book, and his book says he is a loner, so we don’t need your opinion or believe anything your friend says about Tim.”

In this story all three participants are talking about the same person named “Tim”, the same Tim that wrote the book about himself.  And all of them have read Tim’s book and rely on Tim’s book to support their different views. But Cathy and Evan have misinterpreted parts of Tim’s book and are also relying on things their friends have said about Tim.  They are hard set in their opinions about Tim, and they aren’t willing to even consider the evidence that Ammon provided to them.  They won’t consider the possibility that they have misinterpreted some of the things that Tim wrote.

I would add to your conversation.  I'll start with what Evan says last.

Evan: "We don't need to do that, we already know all we need to know about Tim from his book, 
and his book says he is a loner, so we don't need your opinion or believe anything your friend 
says about Tim."

Ammon: Hey Evan, Cathy.  You don't need to read only Tim's book to learn about Tim.  Our group 
has seminary manuals, magazines, and other literature which teach additional things about Tim.

Evan: Yes. I know about them.  But those other sources do not say what Tim says about himself.

Cathy: Yah, you're right Evan. I noticed that too.  Even one of Tim's closest friends told us 
that Tim was not one of a kind.  There are many like Tim in the past and there will be many more 
like Tim in the future.  One of our books, called Gospel Principles, says that even I have the 
potential to have everything that Tim has - all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge.

Evan: And also that he's married to at least one wife.  We don't really talk about Tim's wife. 
 But Tim and his wife are part of another family; their own father and mother.  

Ammon: No way.  That's not my Tim.  My Tim is one of a kind. There is no one like him.  Tim has 
always existed as Tim.  He doesn't have a father or mother. I don't believe what you're telling 
me about these extra sources.

Cathy: Believe me. You can read them for yourself.

Ammon: I will.

Evan/Cathy: So which Tim is a false Tim and which is the true Tim?

Ammon: Don't believe in other books that lead you to believe and follow a false Tim.  And don't 
believe you will have everything Tim has. 

Evan: So where is our group getting these false teachings about Tim which contradicts the book 
Tim wrote about himself?

Ammon: One thing is for sure.  They are not speaking with Tim.  They are getting their information 
from Tim's enemy.  

Cathy:  I wish people would believe what Tim already wrote about himself.  If he wrote a second 
book, that second book would not contradict his first book.
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

And I affirm that the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are in complete harmony with the Holy Bible.  In fact, I proclaim that Latter-day Saints believe in and adhere to the doctrines and teachings of the Holy Bible more completely and in greater harmony than any other religion on the planet (as far as I am aware).

You skipped affirming that teachings about God of your church are in complete harmony with the 
Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, or the Doctrine and Covenants.

I already brought up some in this thread and in previous threads.

• Married to at least one wife.
• Not God from everlasting to everlasting.
• Once a man who became a God and was then worshipped by his own spirit children.
   

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Given that we all (Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter-day Saints, and you [whatever you are], and many other denominations of Christianity that have differing doctrines) say that our teachings conform to the doctrines of the Bible, how do you decide which interpretation of the Bible is correct?

I believe that God identified key aspects of himself clearly in the Bible.  It's not as difficult 
as you think.

As for the other LDS teachings about God, you cannot interpret them using the Bible and the other 
LDS canon because they are not there. See above.
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

God obviously knows what is the correct doctrine, and God lives and hasn't changed, and I believe he continues to speak to us today (the same as in Bible times), and this is the very reason Jesus has restored his church and directs it by revelation through his divinely appointed prophet and apostles, just as he did in New Testament times.

I obviously disagree.

I don't believe Jesus leads any church by revelation which:
    • Taught that some people, because of the color of their skin, are not members of the royal 
    priesthood.  
    • Teaches that he is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God.
    • Teaches that some man and woman became Gods in some other realm and then went on to 
    populate our Earth.  
    • Teaches that all the churches he supposedly set up among the Jaredites, Nephites, and all 
    the other tribes he visited, was destroyed like is believed to have happened in Israel.
    • Teaches the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is three Gods. 
    • Teaches that 2 Nephi 31:21 should not be read literally.  The Father and the Son is taught 
    to be two Gods, not one God like Mosiah 15:1-4 says.
    • Teaches that Gods can be formed.
    • Splits God's fold into separate groups: three sections in the celestial kingdom, then the 
    single kingdoms of telestial and terrestrial.  Jehovah's Witnesses only split Christ's sheep 
    into two groups.

Joseph Smith did not understand the Trinity so he put it another way: "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!... He would be a wonderfully big God - he would be a 
giant or a monster"
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Actually, Paul warned against those who preach of “another Jesus, whom we have not preached” (2 Corinthians 11:4) or of “any other gospel… than that which we have preached unto you”.  The apostles went out personally to teach the gospel in all the congregations of the church.  And Latter-day Saints teach of the very same Jesus that Paul and the apostles taught, and the same gospel that Paul and the apostles taught.  We believe and teach every single thing the Bible teaches about God the Father and Jesus Christ.

But when Paul warned of these things, he also knew that apostasy was coming to the church, and he even expressed some surprise that it was coming into the church even before the apostles were gone, for he said to the Galatians, “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel” (Galatians 1:6).

If you are looking for "another" Jesus, the LDS Church teaches:
    • He is the first spirit child of Heavenly Mother and Father, who then became a God.
    • He is a spirit brother of Lucifer. Apparently the Holy Ghost is another one of his brothers.
    • He atoned for sins in the garden of Gethsemane and the cross.
    • You mentioned earlier that the Great Commission, given just before Christ's ascension, was 
    to only the Jews around the world initially, excluding Gentiles.
    • Christ was not able to prevent his church from being destroyed.

Other LDS leaders taught Jesus is a polygamist.
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you think the Christians that came after them didn’t deviate from scripture when Constantine added the word “homoousios” to the Nicene creed, making the Father and Son one in substance?

I found several versions of the creed.  I think the one you are referring to has the phrase, 
"consubstantial with the Father"

consubstantial /kŏn″səb-stăn′shəl/
adjective
    • Of the same substance, nature, or essence.
    • Of the same kind or nature; having the same substance or essence; coessential.
    • Of the same substance or essence

I don't fully understand how the Trinity consists of three persons but yet is one God.  Joseph 
Smith had a difficult time comprehending this so he came up with other explanations: "a curious 
organization, a strange God, a giant or a monster".
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

 

I don’t think you really mean that.  For example, you have been trying to justify the fact that your church has women participating in the priesthood for some time now, and you have no biblical backing for that practice whatsoever.

Members of the royal priesthood are a peculiar people, offering up spiritual sacrifices and showing 
forth the praises of him who has called them out of darkness (1 Peter 2:5,9).

Do any LDS women come to mind?
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

I asked this in the other thread, and I ask this again here:  What does it mean for God to say “before me” or “after me” in this verse?  God is eternal, so there is no such thing as a “before” or “after” to an eternal God.  So what could that possibly mean?

Yes. We've been discussing this before.  From what I know of LDS theology, Heavenly Father and 
Jesus have eternally existed as eternal intelligences, just like you.  These eternal intelligences 
became spirit children in their respective families and then they went on to become Gods.  
Heavenly Mother becomes a God before Jesus is even born to her.

Yes. God is eternal.  But the LDS Heavenly Father is not eternally God.  You are taught you may 
become a God someday, but you will not be an eternal God either. Joseph Smith taught "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".

Isaiah 43:10 says, "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".

That's a pretty easy explanation for your answer.  This is the Eternal God. There is no God before 
him.  There is no God who will be formed after him.

The meaning is the same for the Jew as it is for the Gentile. That is why you should know, believe, 
and understand what Isaiah is saying.

Let's look at "before" and "after" from another angle. The idea of using Isaiah 43:10 to show 
there is only God for Israel and [possibly?] allowing them to consider true Gods somewhere else 
is deceiving the Israelites because this God (the LDS version of Heavenly Father) was formed - and, 
based on LDS theology, there were other true Gods formed on other worlds where that respective God 
was the God of a particular nation. 

It's possible that many of Heavenly Father's spirit brothers were even formed into Gods "after" 
him instead of "before" him. It's ironic that the LDS "God" who said no Gods were formed before 
him was himself formed into a God by following the plan of salvation taught to him by his own 
Father God - identifying him and his spouse as other Gods who were formed.
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

The bottom line is that there is only one God of Israel, there is no other.  And no other being can become the God of Israel, not before he declared himself to Israel, neither after that time.

I believe there is one God of Israel. He is God of everything, everywhere. There is none before 
him.  This is why he is the Eternal God.

By the way, in line with LDS theology, there wouldn't even be a people Israel if Heavenly Mother 
was not involved in having spirit children in heaven. 

Then we have the teaching that worthy males can become the Gods of other peoples on other worlds 
they create. They are supposedly following the same plan of salvation that their Father on Earth 
followed so that he could become a God.
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

So clearly these verses are not denying the ontological existence of other deities, nor are they saying that nobody else can become a god.  This is obviously not the case because elsewhere scripture affirms that other gods exist when saying that God is the “God of gods” (as in Deut 10:17), or when scripture says “Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works” (Psalm 86:8).  Rather, Isaiah 43:8-12 is denying the relevance of these other gods to Israel.  There is only one God to Israel and none else.

God executed judgment on the Egyptian gods.  This doesn't mean those gods were true Gods. They
were pagan deities.

On the other hand, the gods of Psalm 86 are not true Gods or pagan deities. They are corrupt 
human judges.

What do you believe about 1 Corinthians 8:5-6: "For though there be that are called gods, whether 
in heaven or in earth, (as there be 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".

Who do you think qualifies as "gods" in this context? Is Paul talking about real deities from the 
past, present, or future, or is he referring to false idols that people mistakenly worship as 
gods?
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

So there is good reason that the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 31:21, Mormon 7:7) and Doctrine and Covenants (section 20 verse 28) says that the “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end”.  It is not that they are “one” in the unbiblical sense of being “homoousios” (consubstantial), but rather they are “one God” in unity of thought and will, just as we are to be “one” with Jesus and his Father.

Those verses above do not speak of a unity of thought as you say. 

Neither does this conversation below:

And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
And he answered, No.
Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things?
And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.

Besides, if I am in unity with the Father and the Son, it cannot be said that Jim is "one God" 
in the sense that I am a God or that I am a member of the Godhead or that all Gods who are in 
unity with each other are "one God" instead of being separate Gods.

What does "homoousios" (consubstantial)" mean to you?   Maybe then I could understand how you 
see it as unbiblical.   Are you thinking it means they are the same person, all wrapped up in 
the same body?
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

If the Bible was sufficient and all we need to know, then we wouldn’t have so many groups who claim to follow the Bible teaching such diverse doctrines (as explained earlier).  We definitely need further guidance from God on these matters.

I've outlined several LDS teachings that don't align with scripture.  You mentioned a conversation 
earlier about "Tim".  We discover that Tim is not the source of false teachings about him.
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

And none of the above contradicts anything that came later.

In LDS theology, Heavenly Father has not always been God. Prior to becoming a God, he was a spirit 
child of his own heavenly parents.  Prior to becoming a spirit child of his parents, he was an 
eternal intelligence.  Like Joseph Smith taught, there was a father above Heavenly Father. Following 
his father's plan of salvation, he became worthy enough to become a God and future heavenly father 
of our Earth. Latter-day Saints should not forget to also be grateful for his wife, who also became 
a God and assisted him with making a large heavenly family.
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Ephraim (as a tribe) is the head of the northern tribes, but all the northern tribes would be included.  I mentioned this in my post on 09/04/2024 in the other thread.

At least this time you're not trying to say the northern tribes are not referred to as the 
firstborn in Zechariah 10.
 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Actual Israelites are being sown among the Gentiles, and they are called “Gentiles”, remember?  In Genesis 48:19, it says (of Jacob blessing Ephraim):  "And his father refused and said, I know it, my son, I know it; he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of Gentiles."  Joseph Smith is included in that.

Nice (sarcasm). Israelites sown among Gentiles are Gentiles.  And Gentiles sown among Israelites 
are Israelites.

If that's the case, then there's no need for the LDS Church teaching that the blood of a Gentile 
turns into the literal blood of Abraham when acted upon by the Holy Ghost.

Joseph Smith is taught to be a Gentile and a pure Ephraimite if I recall.

[theplains]

On 9/24/2024 at 1:51 PM, CV75 said:

Sorry, too much time passes between exchanges so I'm not fully engaged. But since Paul's spiritual language speaks on two or three levels, metaphorically and literally, there is plenty of room for Joseph Smith to get represented. But since D&C 113 and Romans 15 tie to Isaiah 11, it would seem that they all tie in to each other and support the prophecies concerning Christ and Joseph Smith, and even others in general supporting roles as Paul suggested.

 

I understand about the time delay. Thank you for your comments.

[InCognitus]

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

I know about the seed of Abraham being one of adoption (both men and women, whether they are 
literal descendants or not; Galatians 3:29).  I was specifically focusing on where the POGP uses 
the phrase "in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood)".  This is the part that excludes women as the 
Latter-day Saints understand the royal priesthood of the New Testament.

It’s not just the way Latter-day Saints understand the royal priesthood of the New Testament, it’s obviously the same way that Peter and Paul and all the apostles understood it as well since there’s not a single example of a woman being ordained to the priesthood in the Bible at all.  The Bible has no mention of such things.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

But then on the other hand, I understand that while the original biblical priesthood (Aaronic) 
followed lineage, the LDS conferral of the Aaronic Priesthood is not dependent on lineage now. 
It is bestowed upon worthy male members generally starting at the age of 12, regardless of their 
family background or lineage.

That’s correct, as the New Testament says that the priesthood was “changed” (Hebrews 7:12), and although that verse is related to the Melchizedek priesthood it also pertains to the Levitical priesthood.  Isaiah says that when Israel is gathered again, they will be brought by the hand of the Gentiles, for which the Lord says: “And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord.”  (Isaiah 66:21)

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

In 1 Peter 2:5,9 Peter is emphasizing that all believers, not just a distinct class or group,
have direct access to God without needing a human intermediary, which was a shift from the Old 
Testament system, where only the Levites served as priests. This priesthood involves offering 
"spiritual sacrifices," which can be understood as acts of praise, thanksgiving, good deeds, 
and living a holy life dedicated to God's service.

Women offer up spiritual sacrifices too.

The term "royal" highlights the dignity and authority that come from being associated with Christ 
the King. As members of this royal priesthood, Christians are called to be mediators of God's 
grace in the world, works of goodness, and proclaimers of His greatness.

This teaching highlights a profound aspect of Christian identity and mission, where every believer 
is called to participate in the work of God's kingdom, reflecting the priesthood of all believers—a 
central principle of Christian doctrine. It's a beautiful reminder of how God elevates and empowers 
His followers to live out a purpose that is both sacred and transformative.

Yes, women are included in the "royal priesthood". In the context of the New Testament, the concept 
of a royal priesthood encompasses all who believe in and follow Jesus Christ, regardless of gender. 
This inclusive approach aligns with the broader New Testament message that emphasizes faith and 
devotion to Christ as the criteria for participation in the blessings and responsibilities of the 
Christian life.

The teachings of the apostles, particularly Paul, emphasize that in Christ, there is neither male 
nor female—everyone is equal in God's eyes (Galatians 3:28). This equality extends to all areas of 
spiritual life and service. Women, alongside men, are called to serve, worship, and minister within 
the community of believers, reflecting the divine image and carrying out the mission of the Church.

You are repeating yourself again and this has all been already addressed in our prior conversations. See the posts from June 23 2023, June 29 2023, June 30 2023, July 4 2023, July 6 2023, July 16 2023, July 18 2023, July 24 2023, March 03 2024, March 16 2024, May 18 2024, May 27 2024, June 09 2024, Aug 18 2024, and Sept 01 2024.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

On 9/22/2024 at 9:41 PM, InCognitus said:

And Doctrine and Covenants 107:40-41 discusses the patriarchal order of the priesthood from Adam to Noah.  It was a patriarchal order prior to the law of Moses (we discussed that previously, see my post on 03/16/2024),

Does that mean no one held the Melchizedek priesthood between Adam and Moses?

Why would you ask such a question given that that section is talking about the Melchizedek priesthood between Adam and Moses as ordained from father to son?  

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

Jesus said Israel would be "led away captive into all the nations… until the times of the Gentiles 
be fulfilled.

You said in a previous reply "The times of the Gentiles is when the fulness of the gospel is 
restored unto the Gentiles, as it began when Christ's church was restored to the earth in the 
early 1800's.

Do you equate the "fulness of the Gentiles" with the "times of the Gentiles"?

The “fulness of the Gentiles” began when the fulness of the gospel was restored as 1 Nephi 15:13-14 says.  The “times of the Gentiles” is not “fulfilled” until the Gentiles have an opportunity to receive the fulness of gospel and then they start to reject it.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

On 9/22/2024 at 9:41 PM, InCognitus said:

When Israel was recovered the “first time”, they were first “gathered” and “assembled” to Sinai (the temple, the mountain of the Lord) to become a people of God and make covenants with him.  It wasn’t until they made their covenants and understood their identity as a “people” of God that they were allowed to go into the lands of their inheritance.  The exact same process happens today.  Israel receiving their covenants in the temples of the Lord and recognizing themselves as a people of God is part of the process of “gathering” and “assembling”.  The land inheritance comes later.

Do you believe the religious Israelites around the world don't view themselves as the people of 
God?

People view themselves in many ways that may or may not be accurate.  But the so called “lost” tribes of Israel around the world are only “lost” in a spiritual sense and need to discover their identity by entering into the new covenant by taking upon themselves the name of Christ and become a people of God in Christ, and then they come to recognize who they are.  And thus, they become eligible for the blessings of their covenants which includes the lands of their inheritance.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

We don't build temples because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost.

I know you don’t build temples, but the fact that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost doesn’t preclude God from having people build temples for his sacred purposes.  

Temples were still important in New Testament times.  The gospel of Luke both begins and ends in the temple (for example), and Jesus said that those who overcome will be made a “pillar in the temple of my God” (Revelation 3:12).  And it’s obvious in the New Testament that God’s temples are intended to continue, because it is not until the earth is renewed and becomes celestialized and the holy city new Jerusalem comes out of heaven that it finally becomes noteworthy that there will be “no temple therein for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it” (Revelation 21:22).  Why would the biblical text draw attention to the absence of a temple in that city if temples were done away at Christ’s first coming as you suppose?  

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

Speaking of land inheritance - 1 Nephi 2:20 says the Lord promised Nephi that he will be led to 
a "land of promise," which is described as a land prepared by the Lord that is better than all 
other lands. In 2 Nephi 1:5-9, Lehi speaks to his family about the land they have been led to, 
describing it as a land of inheritance granted to them by God, where they shall be kept from 
other nations if they are obedient to God's commandments.

We don't know if anything like this happened or where this land was.  But let's assume this is 
somewhere in America.

What about those of Ephraim who were led to other places around the world, like China or Russia.  
Would these be their lands of inheritance?

Yes, of course.  That’s very likely given the blessing that God gave to Jacob and upon the head of Joseph.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

Yes, I remember.  I mentioned it sarcastically.  I don't believe the tribes of Israel will be 
allotted the entire world.  The promise of their land inheritance is already mentioned in the 
Bible.

God didn’t promise those things to Jacob and Joseph sarcastically.  

And you are right, the promise of their land inheritance is already mentioned in the Bible: “thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 28:14).  And, speaking during the high point of Israel’s existence at the time of David (and thus certainly with Israel in mind), it is written “they shall inherit the earth” (Psalm 37:9, 11, 22).  

So you really don’t believe that at all?  Why are you so insistent on excluding Israel from inheriting the earth?  

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

Following the sarcastic logic would mean that all the Israelite tribes would be allotted the 
entire world or only Ephraim would inherit the entire world.

But they are allotted the entire world (as scripture says), and the choice lands promised to them in Canaan are symbolic of the covenant and them keeping their covenants. 

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

On 9/22/2024 at 9:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Which version of “the entire world” would exclude America?

None. 
 
Besides Ephraim, do you believe any other tribe inherits all of America from north to south?

Yes.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

On 9/22/2024 at 9:41 PM, InCognitus said:

And Isaiah 11:10-16 sets up an association between the coming of the “root of Jesse” and the setting up of the ensign of the people and the beginning of the gathering.  The gathering has started, so obviously the servants of Christ have come and the ensign has been established.

How do you understand the term "root of Jesse"?

You can’t be serious.  We already discussed this.  No need to reboot the conversation all over again.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

On 9/22/2024 at 9:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Obviously neither of these examples count as one of the gathering “times”, since the Lord didn’t include them in his count in Isaiah 11:11 when he says he will recover them “the second time”.

I expect the second time is fulfilled in Ezekiel 37:22 ("And I will make them one nation in the 
land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no 
more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all").

Yes, and that happens shortly after the two writing tablets (records) of Joseph and Judah (the Book of Mormon and the Bible) come together in the hand of the prophet, as it says in the verses just prior to that (and we already discussed that too).

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

God did not give America to Jacob.  

You seem so sure of that despite what God says he is giving to Jacob and Joseph and to all the “meek” and those who “wait on the Lord” who are not cut off from the people of God in scripture (Psalm 37:9, 11, 22).

Are you only against the idea of Jacob receiving America, or do you also believe they shouldn’t be allowed to receive any lands other than the land of Canaan?

What I don’t understand is why you believe that God, who blessed Abraham (Genesis 22:17) and Jacob (Genesis 32:12) that their seed shall be “as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude” or multiplied as the “stars of the heaven”, will confine all those descendants of the Israelites from all around the world to a land area that will be too small to sustain them, especially when God says they will “inherit the earth”.  Are the Israelites not “meek” enough?  Do they not “wait on the Lord” sufficiently?  Are they cut off from God’s people?  Do they inherit most of the earth, but they don’t get America because that would validate what “the Mormons” believe?   I sense that your prejudice against Latter-day Saint doctrine is not allowing you to accept the full scope of the promises that were given to the seed of Abraham and Jacob in the Bible.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

The land God promised to Jacob, also known as Israel, is the land of Canaan. This promise is 
initially given to Abraham and subsequently reaffirmed to his son Isaac and then to his grandson 
Jacob. 

In Genesis 28:13-15, while Jacob is dreaming at Bethel, God confirms to him the covenant He made 
with Abraham, telling Jacob that the land on which he lies, he will give to him and his descendants. 
This land also included land to the east of the Jordan River.

God also reaffirms His promise to Jacob about the land in Genesis 35:9-12.  After Jacob returns 
from Padanaram, God appears to him again at Bethel. Here, God blesses Jacob and reaffirms the 
promise, restating that the land which He gave to Abraham and Isaac, He will also give to Jacob 
and to his descendants after him.

Then in Genesis 48:3-4, Jacob recounts to Joseph how God appeared to him at Luz in the land of 
Canaan and blessed him, saying that He would make him fruitful and multiply him, and make of him 
a multitude of people, and give the land to his descendants after him for an everlasting 
possession. This reiteration of the promise emphasizes the enduring nature of the covenant, 
extending it through Jacob's lineage, which would form the tribes of Israel.

All of these verses are true, and the tribes of Israel WILL have those lands.  But that doesn’t mean God confines them to those lands, he has promised them much more than that as I discussed above.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

On 9/22/2024 at 9:41 PM, InCognitus said:

As for the gathering of literal Israel, they have been coming into the new covenant by coming unto Christ and by making covenants with the Lord in his temples for a few years now (and those are among the first steps in the Lord recovering the remnant of his people for the “second time”), so I would guess that a change has already occurred.

Israelites have been coming into the new covenant since the days of Christ.

And only a few Israelites responded to the gospel message at the time of Jesus, because shortly after the resurrection of Jesus the apostles were forced to turn to the Gentiles.  “The kingdom of God” was “taken from” them “and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (Matthew 21:43)

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

Making covenants in 
the temple in Jerusalem was not a requirement.  

However, it's been since 1948 that the Israelites are beginning to return to their land of 
inheritance. To my knowledge, the LDS Church and other churches do not actively participate in 
this gathering in the way that Jewish organizations might.

I explained why that is happening in my prior post.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

On 9/22/2024 at 9:41 PM, InCognitus said:

And Jesus portrays the “times of the Gentiles” as happening at a time after Jerusalem would no longer be trodden down by the Gentiles.

That's not what Jesus said.

I think you may be misunderstanding what I was saying there by taking my quote out of context.  

I was responding to you saying this: 

“I see several ‘times of the Gentiles’ which have a beginning and end depending on how it's used in the scripture. One was fulfilled when Jerusalem was encompassed by armies and then destroyed (around 70 A.D.).”

In response to that I said: “That would be the opposite of the ‘times of the Gentiles’ being fulfilled, because Jesus said the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD was the kickoff for their final scattering of Israel, and that a gathering couldn’t even begin until the ‘times of the Gentiles’.”

And then I wrote the paragraph where I included the part you quoted above:

“There are only two places in the Bible where ‘times of the Gentiles’ or ‘fulness of the Gentiles’ is mentioned, and neither of them suggest that they were beginning or ending at other times.  The apostle Paul, who referred to himself as the ‘apostle of the Gentiles’ and is therefore one of the most likely candidates for when one of ‘times of the Gentiles’ might be started doesn’t even link his statement about the future coming in of ‘the fulness of the Gentiles’ with himself and his lifetime.  And Jesus portrays the ‘times of the Gentiles’ as happening at a time after Jerusalem would no longer be trodden down by the Gentiles.  So having multiple ‘times of the Gentiles’ doesn’t make sense biblically or historically.”

So in Luke 21:24 Jesus was saying that Jerusalem would be trodden down of the Gentiles “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled”.  My comment above in red (that you quoted) is pointing out that the “times of the Gentiles” must be happening in the day when Jerusalem would no longer be trodden down by the Gentiles or otherwise the times of the Gentiles could not be ending at that time.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

You're forgetting a few verses before, which add context.

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is 
nigh … Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be 
fulfilled".  

The times of the Gentiles, in this case, is fulfilled (ends) when Jerusalem is no longer compassed 
by armies and trodden down.  The "until" indicates that the situation of Jerusalem being compassed 
with armies and trodden down is a temporary condition that lasts up to the moment the times of the 
Gentiles are fulfilled. 

I don’t know if I’m understanding you correctly or not, but it looks like you are trying to say that Jesus meant that armies would surround Jerusalem until the “times of the Gentiles” was fulfilled, and not just that Jerusalem would be trodden down by the Gentiles until that time.   If that is in fact what you are suggesting, then you should reread my post on 08/18/2024, because that is certainly not what Jesus is saying there.

As for the prophecy of Jesus that “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled”, it was a well-known prophecy and taken seriously by the early Christians and even by those who opposed them.  The Roman Emperor Julian (331 to 363 AD) even tried to ruin the Christian church by discrediting the prophecy by encouraging the Jews to rebuild their temple and to repopulate Jerusalem, but the attempt to do so was prevented in miraculous ways (there were earthquakes and flames of fire - likely from the Galilee earthquake of 363).

The historian Edward Gibbon (in 1782) described their efforts to rebuild the temple as follows:

“Yet, on this occasion, the joint efforts of power and enthusiasm were unsuccessful; and the ground of the Jewish temple, which is now covered by a Mahometan mosque, still continued to exhibit the same edifying spectacle of ruin and desolation. Perhaps the absence and death of the emperor, and the new maxims of a Christian reign, might explain the interruption of an arduous work, which was attempted only in the last six months of the life of Julian. But the Christians entertained a natural and pious expectation, that, in this memorable contest, the honor of religion would be vindicated by some signal miracle. An earthquake, a whirlwind, and a fiery eruption, which overturned and scattered the new foundations of the temple, are attested, with some variations, by contemporary and respectable evidence.”

As one witness described it, “Whilst Alypius, assisted by the governor of the province, urged, with vigor and diligence, the execution of the work, horrible balls of fire breaking out near the foundations, with frequent and reiterated attacks, rendered the place, from time to time, inaccessible to the scorched and blasted workmen; and the victorious element continuing in this manner obstinately and resolutely bent, as it were, to drive them to a distance, the undertaking was abandoned.”   (See Gibbons, History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Chapter XXIII: Reign Of Julian, Part III.)

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

Here's another simple example using a football analogy: "Two teams will play each other in the 
Super Bowl until the game's outcome is fulfilled".

You should have used basketball and the Boston Celtics as an example instead (GoCeltics). 

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

Christ's Great Commission to his initial disciples was not to only go to the Jews in the world.

You are imposing a later revelation and interpretation back to a point in time where it doesn’t belong.   Remember what Jesus told his apostles where they were expressly forbidden from going to the Gentiles:

“These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:  But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.  And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.”  (Matthew 10:5–7)

And after his resurrection, Jesus taught the apostles for “forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:1-3).

If Jesus had intended the great commission to mean that the apostles should go immediately to the Gentiles, he certainly would have taught them that during the forty days he was with them teaching things pertaining to the kingdom of God.  So there’s no way the apostles could have misunderstood that commandment, and Jesus clearly didn’t change what he told them in Matthew 10:5-7 about not going to the Gentiles and only going to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, because the apostles only went to the Jews up until the time that Peter had his vision in Acts chapter 10.

And even after Acts 10 it was still “necessary” (as Paul put it), a requirement, for them to go to the Jews “first” before they went to the Gentiles.

Of course in modern times Christians have it in their heads that Christianity is for the Gentiles, so it’s easy to make the mistake of reinterpreting what Jesus said with the later teachings in mind.  But that’s not what Jesus meant at first.  But in hindsight it is easy to see the future intended scope of those words given at the great commission, it just wasn’t stated to be so at that time.

And I’m not the only one who thinks that.  See also this site:

https://edgarsreflections.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/does-matthew-2819-includes-reaching-out-to-the-gentiles/

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

But yes, their preference was still to go them (all Israelites) first and then to the Gentiles.  

It wasn’t just a preference; it was an essential requirement (a “necessity”) that the Jews be taught “first” (Acts 13:46-48).  Also, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”  (Romans 1:16)

It was always Paul’s “manner” (Acts 17:2) during his missionary journeys to first go to the local synagogue in each city.  This is clearly seen when he arrived in Antioch in Acts 13:14, to Iconium in Acts 14:1, to Thessalonica in Acts 17:1-2, to Berea in Acts 17:10, to Athens in Acts 17:16-17, to Corinth in Acts 18:4, to Ephesus in Acts 18:19, in the upper coasts of Ephesus in Acts 19:8, and finally at Rome in Acts 28:17.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

The vision in Acts 10 is to correct Peter's view of the Gentile.  He was still stuck in his view 
that Gentiles should not be recipients of the gospel. This vision was revealed to Peter to teach 
him that the gospel was not to be withheld from the Gentiles. 

This was not to “correct” Peter’s view, this was the first proclamation from God that they should start teaching the Gentiles beginning with Cornelius.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

Let's examine the verses:

"And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat". 
"But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean". 
"And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou 
common".

This is not God tell Peter that now is the time for Gentiles to start receiving the gospel.  God
had already cleansed both Israelites and Gentiles with the Atonement. 

Christ’s atonement is for all the world (Jews and Gentiles), but that doesn’t change the fact that Jesus did not command the apostles to go to the Gentiles at first for the great commission.  It wasn’t until Peter received his revelation in Acts 10 that they were told that going to the Gentiles is also an option.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

Prior to his crucifixion, Jesus taught his disciples "And other sheep I have, which are not of 
this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and 
one shepherd".

Christ's mission extends to all people, including Gentiles.

Christ’s message and atonement does indeed extend to all people, including the Gentiles.  But Christ’s personal mission was only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” as he clearly stated:

“I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)   Or as the NASB translation says it, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

So obviously his statement about “other sheep” in John 10:16 cannot be about the Gentiles, because then Matthew 15:24 would be contradicting John 10:16.  So saying the “other sheep” are the Gentiles is simply a bad interpretation and promotes the idea that the Bible contradicts itself.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

Seventy became Seventies.  We never hear about Seventy(s) in the Bible after the initial sending 
out by Jesus or any such commission in the Book of Mormon.

You realize that the Bible is talking about real people and real situations, right?   Do you really think that because scripture never mentions the seventy again that they simply disappeared and aren’t of any significance to Jesus for the reason he sent them out?

I realize that if you are using only the Bible as a source of truth then there is not enough information in the Bible on the seventy to really draw any conclusions one way or another.  But that also just shows that God never intended the Bible to be used independently of him giving revelation to a divinely appointed leadership of apostles and prophets.  Jesus knew why he sent out the seventy, and he still knows it, and Jesus directs his church today and it has a worldwide scope.  So apparently Jesus has a purpose for the seventy even today.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

But for the D&C 107 part, was this first unto all the Gentiles and only then unto the Israelites 
when the fulness of Gentiles has come in?

It was for both at the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, with the preference being to the Gentiles first.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

On 9/22/2024 at 9:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Having the Bible alone without the direction of the divinely appointed leaders of the church has led to “every wind of doctrine”, with everyone going their own way with each person to their own interpretation, doing their own thing.

The Jehovah's Witnesses rely on their Governing Body to understand the Bible.

Yet, they do claim to base their beliefs entirely on the Bible and they tenaciously back up their beliefs with scripture.  But like many others, they interpret scripture incorrectly and they use their own reasoning.  

But isn’t having a divinely appointed governing body exactly how Jesus established his church, and why it is said that the apostles and prophets are to continue until all are in the unity of the faith, so that we be no more children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine? 

Without a divinely inspired governing body what are you left with?  Answer:  A free-for-all on scriptural interpretation resulting in every wind of doctrine. 

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

Latter-day Saints also relied on their appointed leaders in the past to interpret the Bible and 
Pearl of Great Price. Unfortunately they came up with a reason to deny some the Priesthood.  "The 
Way to Perfection", written by a former LDS President, portrays how the church interpreted 
scripture and came up with their policy.  The Journal of Discourses, which includes contributions 
from Brigham Young, also provides some insights. 

The LDS Church was living in dark days during that era.  Pardon the pun.  

The present-day church tries to disavow what they call theories of the past.  But they cannot erase 
history.  That history presents them as direction from the Lord.    I'm not surprised that the 
church has chosen not to reproduce old Mormon teaching texts of the past.

The apostles and prophets are called of God, both in Bible times and now, and they are given revelation from God pertaining to the church.  But the apostles and prophets, both anciently and in modern times, are human and they always come into their callings with their human prejudices, traditions, and cultural practices, some of which may be inappropriate in Christ’s church, and these men can (and do sometimes) make mistakes.  And sometimes God lets these incorrect ideas get worked out over time until the leaders ask questions, and corrections are made.  

This is especially true at the initial establishment of both the New Testament Christian church and in the Restored Church, because at the beginning of both movements, everyone was a convert and they all brought into the church their own outside ideas.  And it often takes time for the leadership (and the members) to sift through incorrect ideas and come to understand the full scope of what God has revealed to them.

In New Testament Christianity the initial converts were all Jewish, and when the Gentiles were admitted into the church it took several years before the specific Jewish practices and prejudices against the Gentiles were worked out.  It wasn’t until Acts chapter 15 that the leadership received direction on how to handle circumcision (for example), and some prejudices between the Jews and Gentiles continued for decades.  Even years later, Peter still had trouble associating with the Gentile converts.  And with regard to doctrine and prophecy, the leaders didn’t always fully understand the scope of what was revealed to them, such as the apostle Paul (for example) thinking that the second coming of Christ would happen during his lifetime.

In the restored church of Jesus Christ, the converts came from various Protestant traditions and cultural settings.  And it was hard for some of them to get past their traditions to fully accept some of the things that God wanted to reveal to them.  As an example, Brigham Young, commenting on the vision given in section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants said, “My traditions were such, that when the Vision came first to me, it was directly contrary and opposed to my former education. I said, Wait a little. I did not reject it; but I could not understand it.”   

And at the time of the restoration in the early 1800’s, the curse of Cain and the curse of Ham doctrines were at the height of Protestant acceptance in North America.  And even though Joseph Smith had accepted and ordained black individuals to the priesthood, the popular Protestant doctrine of that era made its way into church doctrine, primarily through Brigham Young.  It’s an unfortunate thing.  And for whatever reason, God doesn’t fix all these problems immediately.  But they do get worked out eventually (as did happen with this particular issue), and some day each and every one of us will see all the things that we’ve gotten wrong and things we have misunderstood.  

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

Yes. I heard that.  That would explain why Gospel Principles referred to it as the destruction 
of the church. Following that logic, using the Book of Mormon and Bible, the church that supposedly 
existed among the Jaredites was destroyed.  And the church among the Nephites was destroyed.  And 
all the churches that Jesus supposedly established among all the tribes he visited (3 Nephi 16:1, 
3 Nephi 17:4) were destroyed too.

The Bible says the gates of hell would not prevail against his church.  This is his church on the 
offense, not defense.

If you think the apostasy mentioned in Acts 20:29 is severe, wait until 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 
occurs.

We have already discussed why the “gates of hades” are intended to keep people in the grave and why the gates of the grave would not prevail against the church (because of the resurrection) and why that statement has nothing to do with Jesus saying the church would never fall into apostasy.  And we already discussed why the apostasy prophecy by Paul was already beginning in his day (as Paul stated) and it has already been fulfilled.  It happened shortly after the apostles “departed”.  

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

I would add to your conversation.  I'll start with what Evan says last.

Evan: "We don't need to do that, we already know all we need to know about Tim from his book, 
and his book says he is a loner, so we don't need your opinion or believe anything your friend 
says about Tim."

Ammon: Hey Evan, Cathy.  You don't need to read only Tim's book to learn about Tim.  Our group 
has seminary manuals, magazines, and other literature which teach additional things about Tim.

Evan: Yes. I know about them.  But those other sources do not say what Tim says about himself.

Cathy: Yah, you're right Evan. I noticed that too.  Even one of Tim's closest friends told us 
that Tim was not one of a kind.  There are many like Tim in the past and there will be many more 
like Tim in the future.  One of our books, called Gospel Principles, says that even I have the 
potential to have everything that Tim has - all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge.

Evan: And also that he's married to at least one wife.  We don't really talk about Tim's wife. 
 But Tim and his wife are part of another family; their own father and mother.  

Ammon: No way.  That's not my Tim.  My Tim is one of a kind. There is no one like him.  Tim has 
always existed as Tim.  He doesn't have a father or mother. I don't believe what you're telling 
me about these extra sources.

Cathy: Believe me. You can read them for yourself.

Ammon: I will.

Evan/Cathy: So which Tim is a false Tim and which is the true Tim?

Ammon: Don't believe in other books that lead you to believe and follow a false Tim.  And don't 
believe you will have everything Tim has. 

Evan: So where is our group getting these false teachings about Tim which contradicts the book 
Tim wrote about himself?

Ammon: One thing is for sure.  They are not speaking with Tim.  They are getting their information 
from Tim's enemy.  

Cathy:  I wish people would believe what Tim already wrote about himself.  If he wrote a second 
book, that second book would not contradict his first book.

This is an interesting version of the story, as it reveals a lot about how you perceive your role in misrepresenting Latter-day Saint doctrine based on the way you attempt to portray it.  And in your story you focus on bits and pieces of scripture or statements out of context without considering the big picture.  It’s like when you were criticizing President Nelson by comparing what he said in his conference talk to the verses in the gospel of Matthew when he was actually quoting from the gospel of Luke instead.  You were pitting Matthew against Luke, and it’s a hypercritical view.  Or when you quoted the portion of an Ensign article and portrayed it as Latter-day Saint doctrine when the article itself said the statement was an incorrect teaching. These kinds of things demonstrate criticism with a total disregard for the truth. 

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

You skipped affirming that teachings about God of your church are in complete harmony with the 
Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, or the Doctrine and Covenants.

The Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants are part of the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they are in complete harmony with the Holy Bible, so I didn’t need to point this out.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

I already brought up some in this thread and in previous threads.

• Married to at least one wife.

The Bible does not contradict this teaching.  

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

•    Not God from everlasting to everlasting.

This is not what Latter-day Saints teach at all.  We affirm that God is from “everlasting to everlasting” (Moroni 7:22, Doctrine and Covenants 20:17 and 61:1). 

Also see our prior discussion on the meaning of “everlasting to everlasting” in the Bible here 07/09/2022, here 07/25/2022, here 08/10/2022, here 10/30/2022, here 11/12/2022, here 11/16/2022, here 11/21/2022, here 11/27/2022, here 12/24/2022), and here 07/10/2023, and here 01/01/2024.  You simply interpret the Bible differently now than how that phrase was understood in Bible times.

On 9/13/2024 at 3:00 PM, theplains said:

Once a man who became a God and was then worshipped by his own spirit children.

The Bible does not contradict what you say above.  

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

I believe that God identified key aspects of himself clearly in the Bible.  It's not as difficult 
as you think.

As for the other LDS teachings about God, you cannot interpret them using the Bible and the other 
LDS canon because they are not there. See above.

I don’t think it’s difficult at all, God does identify key aspects of himself clearly in the Bible.  He is the “God of gods”, and there is “none like him” as no other God compares to him. He is our “Father”, the “Father of spirits”, And we are the same kind of being as God, just as the Bible teaches.  But not everything God says about himself and our relationship to him in the Bible is acceptable to some later developed views about God, so that’s what creates the confusion in modern Christian sects.  

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

On 9/22/2024 at 9:41 PM, InCognitus said:

God obviously knows what is the correct doctrine, and God lives and hasn't changed, and I believe he continues to speak to us today (the same as in Bible times), and this is the very reason Jesus has restored his church and directs it by revelation through his divinely appointed prophet and apostles, just as he did in New Testament times.

I obviously disagree.

Of course you do.  Interpreting the Bible however we want gives people freedom to believe whatever wind of doctrine we want, right?

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

I don't believe Jesus leads any church by revelation which:
    • Taught that some people, because of the color of their skin, are not members of the royal 
    priesthood.  
    • Teaches that he is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God.
    • Teaches that some man and woman became Gods in some other realm and then went on to 
    populate our Earth.  
    • Teaches that all the churches he supposedly set up among the Jaredites, Nephites, and all 
    the other tribes he visited, was destroyed like is believed to have happened in Israel.
    • Teaches the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is three Gods. 
    • Teaches that 2 Nephi 31:21 should not be read literally.  The Father and the Son is taught 
    to be two Gods, not one God like Mosiah 15:1-4 says.
    • Teaches that Gods can be formed.
    • Splits God's fold into separate groups: three sections in the celestial kingdom, then the 
    single kingdoms of telestial and terrestrial.  Jehovah's Witnesses only split Christ's sheep 
    into two groups.

I’m not going down the rabbit hole with you on each and every item on this list that you get wrong (or right), but I’ll touch on some of your misconceptions below.  

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

Joseph Smith did not understand the Trinity so he put it another way: "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!... He would be a wonderfully big God - he would be a 
giant or a monster"

Nobody, not even yourself [as you admitted] or Trinitarians, say they can understand the Trinity.  

According to the Got Questions website, “The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to perfectly and completely understand it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain.” (see article, What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?).  

You can’t understand the Trinity, Trinitarians can’t understand the Trinity, so why would you expect Joseph Smith to understand it?  But there is more than one way that you are judging Joseph Smith unfairly.

Regarding your so-called quote from Joseph Smith, you obviously just cut and pasted that from your website without checking it again, since your website edited that quote and conveniently omitted an important part of the context.  The ellipses in your quote above are in the exact same place as what is posted on your website.  Your website takes a lot of things out of context and misrepresents a lot of Latter-day Saint teachings.

In context, Joseph Smith wasn’t defining the Trinity in the last part of your quote, rather Joseph Smith was taking the Bible for what it says in John 17:20-23 in connection with how Trinitarians define the oneness of God in the Trinity.  He reasoned, if, as Jesus prayed (in John 17:20-23) for those disciples whom the Father has given him are to be “one as we are”, then they [the disciples given to Jesus] would all be crammed into one God (using a Trinitarian definition of how they are “one”).  He is not saying that the three persons of the Trinity would be crammed into one God as your edited quote implies.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

If you are looking for "another" Jesus, the LDS Church teaches:
    • He is the first spirit child of Heavenly Mother and Father, who then became a God.
    • He is a spirit brother of Lucifer. Apparently the Holy Ghost is another one of his brothers.

Speculation isn’t the same as revealed doctrine.  And some of what you say above is Biblical and even taught in early Christianity.  

For example, how is Jesus the “first begotten” of the Father as it says in Hebrews 1:6, or that he is our “brother” as stated in Hebrews 2:17-18, or that he was “begotten of the Father before all worlds” as it says in the 381 AD version of the Nicene Creed, or “begotten before the worlds” as stated in the Athanasian Creed?

The early Christians taught that extensively.  For example, Lactantius (c. 240-c 320 AD), a noted Christian teacher at the end of the third century wrote the following:

"CHAP. XLIII.--OF THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS TWOFOLD NATIVITY.

"But lest by any chance there should be any doubt in your mind why we call Him Jesus Christ, who was born of God before the world, and who was born of man three hundred years ago, I will briefly explain to you the reason. The same person is the son of God and of man. For He was twice born: first of God, in the spirit, before the origin of the world; afterwards in the flesh of man, in the reign of Augustus; and in connection with this fact is an illustrious and great mystery, in which is contained both the salvation of men and the religion of the Supreme God, and all truth." (Lactantius, "The Epitome of the Divine Institutes", Chapter XLIII).

And there’s a lot more where that came from.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

    • He atoned for sins in the garden of Gethsemane and the cross.

I can’t help it if some people don’t believe what the Bible says about Jesus.  But just because someone else doesn’t believe what the Bible says it doesn’t mean what we believe is a “different Jesus”.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

    • You mentioned earlier that the Great Commission, given just before Christ's ascension, was 
    to only the Jews around the world initially, excluding Gentiles.

Yes, just as Jesus had commanded his apostles earlier to go only to the Jews and not to the Gentiles, and he hadn’t changed that commandment at the time of the great commission.  Just because you reinterpret the phrase “all the world” as the Gentiles doesn’t make it so.  

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

  • Christ was not able to prevent his church from being destroyed.

This sounds like a typical atheist argument against the existence of God.  ("If God exists, why can't he prevent all the suffering in the world", etc.?)

Christ wasn’t “able to prevent” the fall of Adam, and Christ wasn’t “able to prevent” wickedness at the time of Noah that made it necessary to destroy them all in a flood, and he wasn’t “able to prevent” ancient Israel from going into apostasy several times and becoming “lost” either (if you want to characterize it that way, I don’t).  I believe Jesus lets us make choices and we must face the consequences of those choices, and his plan includes a provision for our redemption from bad choices.  

Your statement falsely presupposes that it was Christ’s intent to prevent the church from being destroyed. But Jesus and the apostles knew full well that apostasy of the church would occur after the apostles were removed.  They foretold it and knew a restoration would be needed for the church just as a restoration would be needed for Israel.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

Other LDS leaders taught Jesus is a polygamist.

More speculation.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

I found several versions of the creed.  I think the one you are referring to has the phrase, 
"consubstantial with the Father"

consubstantial /kŏn″səb-stăn′shəl/
adjective
    • Of the same substance, nature, or essence.
    • Of the same kind or nature; having the same substance or essence; coessential.
    • Of the same substance or essence

I don't fully understand how the Trinity consists of three persons but yet is one God.  Joseph 
Smith had a difficult time comprehending this so he came up with other explanations: "a curious 
organization, a strange God, a giant or a monster".

See my comments above for how you misrepresented Joseph Smith’s statement (as you have done previously) on your webpage.  Do you try to misrepresent Joseph Smith and our doctrines intentionally? 

As for what “homoousios” means, it’s not that there are different “versions” of the creed as much as there have been different ways of translating it and understanding what that word means.  And below you ask me: “What does ‘homoousios’ (consubstantial)" mean to you?   Maybe then I could understand how you see it as unbiblical.”  It really doesn’t matter what I think it means, but what really matters is how Christians have understood and taught the concept and how they have interpreted it.

Originally, “homoousios” as it pertains to the Father and Son was explained (during the discussion at the Council of Nicaea) to mean that Jesus has the same nature as God the Father.  In other words, the Father is a divine being, and Jesus is a divine being.  Latter-day Saints would completely agree with that as it stands.  

However, that definition has morphed into the modern understanding that the three persons of the Godhead are “one being”, as shown in these Got Questions website definitions of homoousious and the meaning of the Trinity.

In the article titled: What is the meaning of homoousious? , the article discusses the Arian controversy that led up to the Council of Nicaea, and then it says of the council:  

“The bishops of the church discussed and debated the issue and finally decided by overwhelming majority that homoousious (‘same substance’) best encapsulates the teaching of the New Testament on the nature of Jesus. The Nicene Creed was the result of this meeting and reads in part, ‘We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.’ That last phrase of one being is a translation of the Greek word homoousious. The word homoousious is not found in Scripture, but the Council felt this was the best word to describe orthodox biblical teaching concerning Christ.”

Regarding the anathemas at the end of the first rendition of the Nicene Creed, Eusebius wrote “As far as the condemnation they attached to the end of the creed, it did not cause us pain, because it forbad the use of words not found in Scripture, from which almost all the confusion and disorder in the Church have come. Since then no divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, ‘out of nothing,’ and ‘once he was not,’ and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for using or teaching them. We think that this was a good decision, since it has never been our custom to use these terms.”  

It’s ironic that an unscriptural word (homoousious) was used in a creed that forbad the use of words not found in scripture, and that word developed into unscriptural concepts about the relationship of the three members of the Godhead. 

The Got Questions website explains what it considers to be the essential biblical teachings of the doctrine of the Trinity in the article titled:  What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?   The article says:

“The doctrine of the Trinity has been a divisive issue throughout the entire history of the Christian church. While the core aspects of the Trinity are clearly presented in God’s Word, some of the side issues are not as explicitly clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God. That is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Beyond that, the issues are, to a certain extent, debatable and non-essential. Rather than attempting to fully define the Trinity with our finite human minds, we would be better served by focusing on God’s greatness and His infinitely higher nature. “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” (Romans 11:33-34).”

So the only aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity that the Bible teaches in a “clear” way (according the article) are that “The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God.”  Everything else is “debatable and non-essential” because they are “not as explicitly clear”.   

And in the article, What is Trinitarianism?, the Got Questions website also concedes that even though they call Trinitarianism a “biblically-based” doctrine, it isn’t clear enough to require a strict understanding of the doctrine in order to be “saved”.  They write:

“We strongly hold that Trinitarianism is a biblically-based doctrine. We dogmatically proclaim that understanding and believing in biblical Trinitarianism is crucially important to understanding God, salvation, and the ongoing work of God in the lives of believers. At the same time, there have been godly men, genuine followers of Christ, who have had some disagreements with aspects of Trinitarianism. It is important to remember that we are not saved by having perfect doctrine. We are saved by trusting in our perfect Savior (John 3:16). Do we have to believe in some aspects of Trinitarianism to be saved? Yes. Do we have to fully agree with all areas of Trinitarianism to be saved? No.”

Again, I find it ironic that on the one hand the website proclaims that “understanding and believing in biblical Trinitarianism is crucially important to understanding God” (etc.), and on the other hand they say (as I quoted earlier in my post) “that there is no way to perfectly and completely understand it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain.”  It is thus "crucially important" to "understand" something that is "impossible for any human being to fully understand".  So we're all doomed!

A lot of Christian groups agree on the basic principles that were stated by the Got Questions website to be “essential” to the doctrine of the Trinity, but there is a paradox in the idea that each of the three persons are called “God” but there is “only one God”, and sometimes there are attempts at resolving this paradox using unbiblical means.

Some groups try to resolve the paradox by denying the deity of Jesus Christ.  Others, like the Oneness Pentecostals, claim that the one God has different manifestations, roles, modes, titles, attributes, relationships to man, that are the functions of the one God.  And groups that follow the decisions made at the First Council of Nicaea claim that the three are really “one Being” and that the “triune God of Scripture… possesses one indivisible essence.  There is only one Being that is God, and this one Being is tri-personal, with each of the three Persons having full possession of the divine nature” (see the Got Questions article:  How is the doctrine of the Trinity not tritheism?)

But this concept can’t be found anywhere in scripture.  The Got Questions website tries to find ways to impose the concept of a homoousious Father and Son upon the Bible.  In the article, What is the ontological Trinity / immanent Trinity?, the website says:   
 
“The ontological Trinity is basic Christian doctrine and is foundational to all Christian belief. John 10:30 says that Jesus and the Father are one, by which it is meant that they are of one nature.”

John 10:30 simply says “I and my Father are one”.  The verse doesn’t explain how the Father and Son are “one”, but the website asserts (without any biblical support) that this means “they are of one nature”.  In other words, the Bible isn't clear at all on this doctrine so people (who are not apostles or prophets) need to tell us what it means here (simply because they say so!). They are imposing a philosophical idea that was formulated years later upon this verse, and that concept exists nowhere in scripture.  The concept is just not Bible based at all.  Why not just look seven chapters later where Jesus expounds on how it is that he and his Father are "one"?

Elsewhere in the Got Questions article:  How is the doctrine of the Trinity not tritheism? (the same article I mentioned earlier), they say:

“Does the fact that there exist three divine Persons entail that there exist three separate gods? The answer is no. The same Scriptures that affirm that all three Persons of the Trinity are divine also unequivocally affirm monotheism (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Timothy 2:5).”  

But again, the scriptures referenced above do not support the idea of “monotheism” as it is understood today.  

Deuteronomy 6:4 is the shema, which says “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4).  The Hebrew word translated as “one” in that verse is echadh, which is the exact same Hebrew word that is used in Genesis 2:24 where it says, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one [echadh] flesh”.  Obviously, this can’t be construed to mean that the man and wife are to become ontologically “one being”, so why try to impose such a meaning on Deuteronomy 6:4?  This is just forcing modern ideas upon the biblical text.

1 Timothy 2:5 has a similar problem.  It states, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).  This verse, like many others in the Bible, situates the “man Christ Jesus” as a mediator between the “one God” and mankind.  While the divinity of Jesus Christ is without question (John 1:1-3, 14, Philippians 2:6-7), scripture affirms repeatedly that there is “One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Ephesians 4:6)  And in context the “one God and Father of all, who is above all” is also the God and Father of Jesus Christ (John 20:17, Rom 15:6, 1 Cor 11:3,  2 Cor 11:31, Eph 1:3, Eph 1:17; Heb 1:8-9, 1 Pet 1:3, Rev 3:12), and Jesus is even said to be eternally subject to the Father (1 Cor 15:28).

In the article, Are God and Jesus the same person?, the Got Questions website explains that the “doctrine of the Trinity is the best explanation for all of the biblical evidence”, and after discussing John 1:1-3 the article says:

“It is this kind of biblical information that led to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. When ‘God’ is spoken of in the Old Testament, most people probably think of God the Father, but it would be more accurate to think of ‘God the Trinity.’ In the New Testament, we see how each Person of the Trinity assumed different roles in the redemption of lost humanity, but the different Persons are always in complete agreement, acting as one.”

So from all of this it becomes perfectly clear that the doctrine of the Trinity was not something taught by Jesus or the apostles, and it’s definitely not “explicitly” taught in the Bible.  Rather, it is a doctrine that was “formulated” later after Constantine requested that the word “homoousious“ be inserted into the Nicene Creed, a word that tried to redefine how the Father and Son are “one” in a completely unbiblical way.  It is not something that comes from the Bible at all.

And, I completely disagree with the article quoted above that “the doctrine of the trinity is the best explanation of all the biblical evidence”, on the contrary.  The best explanation is the one that comes from the perfectly clear and more coherent explanation as to how the Father and Son are “one God” right within the biblical texts.

In my last post I already discussed how Jesus prayed for his disciples to be “one” with him and his Father in exactly the same way Jesus is “one” with his Father (John 17:11, 20-23).  He prayed for his disciples, “that they may be one, as we are”, and “that they all may be one; as though, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also be one in us…. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:  I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one”.  

With this clear biblical explanation there is absolutely no reason to make up a new definition of how the Father and Son are “one”.

And elsewhere Jesus said to his disciples that when they see him again, “because I live, ye shall live also.  At that day ye shall know that I am in the Father, and ye in me, and I in you” (John 14:19-20).

This is not a description of some mysterious type of oneness that requires a redefinition of the Father and Son as “one Being” and is impossible for humans to comprehend or understand.  The Bible is perfectly clear on this point.  And this resolves all of the other doctrinal problems that come up by trying to explain how the doctrine of the Trinity fits with other verses in the Bible.  It also explains how it is that God is the “God of gods”, and when we read verses like Exodus 15:11 that says, “Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?”, we can read it for exactly what it says and it makes perfect sense.  

There is one God who is “above all”, and He is represented perfectly by his divine Son who is God in his nature (since he is the exact replica of the Father’s nature as it says in Hebrews 1:3) who does only the will of his Father and refers to his Father as “my God”, and is one with his Father in his will and attributes, and invites each of us to become one with them in the same way by uniting our will with theirs, and thus fulfilling the purposes of the Father to the glory of the Father.  

This also explains (as I noted previously) why the earliest Christians (those who lived prior to the changes made in the first council of Nicaea) taught that Jesus is the “second God” or “another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things”, or that "the nature of the Son, which is nearest to Him who is alone the Almighty One, is the most perfect, and most holy, and most potent, and most princely, and most kingly, and most beneficent."  And they taught that men can become gods, and understood the “God of gods” in verses like Psalm 136:2, or Psalm 50:1 (in the Septuagint), and the “gods many, and lords many” of 1 Corinthians 8:5, as referring to “gods as really existing” (and not corrupt human judges or idols).  It totally makes more biblical sense to use the biblical definition of how the Father and Son are “one” as used in John 17:11 and 20-23, and that’s exactly how the earliest Christians understood it as well.

The same goes for understanding the kind of being that God is.  Modern Christians have pushed harder and harder to widen the distance between God and man, teaching that God is “transcendent” and “wholly other” from his creation.  

But when Jesus came, he taught that God is his Father and our Father, and Jesus did the works of his Father, and taught us that seeing Jesus it is the same as seeing the Father.  And in perhaps the first place in the entire Bible where the concept of the true God is explained to people outside of Judaism, the apostle Paul taught very clearly that we are even the very same kind of being as God (Acts 17:28-29, we are his “genos”).  

This is not blasphemy.  This is Bible 101.  And these are some of the many reasons I said previously that “Latter-day Saints believe in and adhere to the doctrines and teachings of the Holy Bible more completely and in greater harmony than any other religion on the planet”.  It considers all aspects of the revealed word of God.

So when people try to say that Latter-day Saints teach of “a different God” or of a “different Jesus” than that taught by Jesus and the apostles, it causes me to wonder if they’ve ever read the Bible.  Because we believe and teach everything the Bible says about God the Father and Jesus. 

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

Isaiah 43:10 says, "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".

That's a pretty easy explanation for your answer.  This is the Eternal God. There is no God before 
him.  There is no God who will be formed after him.

The meaning is the same for the Jew as it is for the Gentile. That is why you should know, believe, 
and understand what Isaiah is saying.

That was my whole point, since God IS eternal, trying to interpret that verse as God saying that nobody else can become a god “before” him or “after” him is meaningless, and God doesn’t say meaningless things.  He had a reference point in mind which is seen in the context in verse 12.  God is not saying that there are no other "gods", instead he's saying that there is no other "God" in the supreme sense to be the God of Israel or to be our God for that matter.  We have only one God that is our God and there is no other God for us.  Forever and ever.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

Let's look at "before" and "after" from another angle. The idea of using Isaiah 43:10 to show 
there is only God for Israel and [possibly?] allowing them to consider true Gods somewhere else 
is deceiving the Israelites because this God (the LDS version of Heavenly Father) was formed - and, 
based on LDS theology, there were other true Gods formed on other worlds where that respective God 
was the God of a particular nation. 

Even if we ignore the fact that you are misinterpreting the verse by having the eternal God say something nonsensical about having a “God” formed “before” or “after him (which can’t happen – he is ETERNAL), your argument fails on how it would supposedly refute “LDS theology”.  No God is “formed” from an LDS point of view.  God is an eternal Spirit, and we are eternal spirits.  We can become like our Father and partake of all that he has, but this comes through our obedience and experience, and it’s not something that is “formed”.  Those who “overcome” will sit with God in his throne.  It’s not something “formed” for them.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

On 9/22/2024 at 9:41 PM, InCognitus said:

The bottom line is that there is only one God of Israel, there is no other.  And no other being can become the God of Israel, not before he declared himself to Israel, neither after that time.

I believe there is one God of Israel. He is God of everything, everywhere. There is none before 
him.  This is why he is the Eternal God.

There IS one God of Israel, and he is the God of everything he has created everywhere.  And because he is eternal, the statements “before” him and “after” him are meaningless unless there is a context to what he says came “before” or “after”, which in these verses was where he said, “I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God".

And those who become gods by following his precepts will inherit all that God has (“all things”), and he will be our God, and we will be his children.  He will therefore still be the God of everything and will be glorified in bringing others to participate in the kind of life that he lives.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

On 9/22/2024 at 9:41 PM, InCognitus said:

So clearly these verses are not denying the ontological existence of other deities, nor are they saying that nobody else can become a god.  This is obviously not the case because elsewhere scripture affirms that other gods exist when saying that God is the “God of gods” (as in Deut 10:17), or when scripture says “Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works” (Psalm 86:8).  Rather, Isaiah 43:8-12 is denying the relevance of these other gods to Israel.  There is only one God to Israel and none else.

God executed judgment on the Egyptian gods.  This doesn't mean those gods were true Gods. They
were pagan deities.

So God is the God of pagan deities?  That’s not very impressive.  Anyone or anything or any creature (a cat or dog) could be the “God” over non-existent fake “gods”.  It makes much more sense (and is much more impressive) to understand that God is the God over all other gods that exist in reality.   (See also our previous discussion on 09/16/2029). 

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

On the other hand, the gods of Psalm 86 are not true Gods or pagan deities. They are corrupt 
human judges.

Oh really?   Psalm 86:8 reads, “Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.”   And you read that as, “Among the corrupt human judges there is none like unto thee, O Lord, neither are there any works among the corrupt human judges like unto thy works”?  Is that what you think that means?   That makes it sound as if he is the best corrupt human judge that there is!  

Why would God say such a thing unless “among the gods” there really is “NONE like unto” him.  Our God, the one God who is the one God above all, is beyond comparison.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

What do you believe about 1 Corinthians 8:5-6: "For though there be that are called gods, whether 
in heaven or in earth, (as there be 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".

Who do you think qualifies as "gods" in this context? Is Paul talking about real deities from the 
past, present, or future, or is he referring to false idols that people mistakenly worship as 
gods?

Paul very clearly taught "they be no gods, which are made with hands" (Acts 19:26), and "Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods" (Galatians 4:8), and in the context of this very chapter he taught that "we know that an idol is nothing in the world" (1 Cor 8:4). 

Therefore, to Paul, false gods and idols are not gods at all, they are “nothing”.   So, when Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 that “there be gods many, and lords many” he can’t possibly be referring to false gods or Paul would be contradicting himself.  Paul was fully aware that other “gods” exist in reality.

The earliest Christians also understood this verse this way.  Origen (185-254 AD), wrote the following:

"There are some gods of whom God is God, as we hear in prophecy, [Psalms 136:2] ‘Thank ye the God of gods,’ and [Psalms 50:1, LXX and in the Hebrew] ‘The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth.’ Now God, according to the Gospel, [Matt 20:2] ‘is not the God of the dead but of the living.’ Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says: [1 Cor 8:5] ‘As there are gods many and lords many,’ and so we have spoken of these gods as really existing. Now there are, besides the gods of whom God is god, certain others, who are called thrones, and others called dominions, lordships, also, and powers in addition to these. The phrase, ‘above every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come,’ leads us to believe that there are yet others besides these which are less familiar to us; one kind of these the Hebrews called Sabai, from which Sabaoth was formed, who is their ruler, and is none other than God. Add to all these the reasonable being who is mortal, man. Now the God of all things made first in honour some race of reasonable beings; this I consider to be those who are called gods, and the second order, let us say, for the present, are the thrones, and the third, undoubtedly, the dominions. And thus we come down in order to the last reasonable race, which, perhaps, cannot be any other than man."  (Origen's Commentary on John, book 1 chapter 34).  

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

Those verses above do not speak of a unity of thought as you say. 

Neither does this conversation below:

And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
And he answered, No.
Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things?
And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.

But all those verses do affirm the unity of God

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

Besides, if I am in unity with the Father and the Son, it cannot be said that Jim is "one God" 
in the sense that I am a God or that I am a member of the Godhead or that all Gods who are in 
unity with each other are "one God" instead of being separate Gods.

Ok, but then you obviously don’t believe Jesus when he says, “that they may be one even as we are one”.  

And, there is “One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Ephesians 4:6)

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

What does "homoousios" (consubstantial)" mean to you?   Maybe then I could understand how you 
see it as unbiblical.   Are you thinking it means they are the same person, all wrapped up in 
the same body?

See above.  I already addressed this.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

I've outlined several LDS teachings that don't align with scripture.

Where?  You posted a lot of speculation, but all of our actual teachings align with scripture perfectly.

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

In LDS theology, Heavenly Father has not always been God. Prior to becoming a God, he was a spirit 
child of his own heavenly parents.  Prior to becoming a spirit child of his parents, he was an 
eternal intelligence.  Like Joseph Smith taught, there was a father above Heavenly Father. Following 
his father's plan of salvation, he became worthy enough to become a God and future heavenly father 
of our Earth. Latter-day Saints should not forget to also be grateful for his wife, who also became 
a God and assisted him with making a large heavenly family.

You are projecting a lot of speculative ideas in the paragraph above, and those things go far beyond what the scriptures teach and what Joseph Smith taught.  

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

On 9/22/2024 at 9:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Actual Israelites are being sown among the Gentiles, and they are called “Gentiles”, remember?  In Genesis 48:19, it says (of Jacob blessing Ephraim):  "And his father refused and said, I know it, my son, I know it; he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of Gentiles."  Joseph Smith is included in that.

Nice (sarcasm). Israelites sown among Gentiles are Gentiles.  And Gentiles sown among Israelites 
are Israelites.

I didn’t sense any sarcasm in the blessing Jacob gave to Joseph stating that his seed would become a multitude of Gentiles.  Why do you?  (That’s an honest question).

Edited October 21, 2024 by InCognitus
missing hyperlink fix

[theplains]

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

It’s not just the way Latter-day Saints understand the royal priesthood of the New Testament, it’s obviously the same way that Peter and Paul and all the apostles understood it as well since there’s not a single example of a woman being ordained to the priesthood in the Bible at all.  The Bible has no mention of such things.

1 Peter 2:5 mentions those in the royal priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices to God.

What are some examples of spiritual sacrifices offered to God by LDS high priests?  
 
For those LDS males who did not (before 1978) and do not (after 1978) hold the priesthood, what 
spiritual sacrifices did (do) they offer?
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

That’s correct, as the New Testament says that the priesthood was “changed” (Hebrews 7:12), and although that verse is related to the Melchizedek priesthood it also pertains to the Levitical priesthood.  Isaiah says that when Israel is gathered again, they will be brought by the hand of the Gentiles, for which the Lord says: “And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord.”  (Isaiah 66:21)

You also forgot to mention verse 20.  "And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering 
unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, 
and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the children of Israel 
bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord".

Not to Salt Lake City Utah, Independence Missouri, or any other place in America.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

Why would you ask such a question given that that section is talking about the Melchizedek priesthood between Adam and Moses as ordained from father to son?

Don't you men from a father to all of his worthy sons?
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

The “fulness of the Gentiles” began when the fulness of the gospel was restored as 1 Nephi 15:13-14 says.  The “times of the Gentiles” is not “fulfilled” until the Gentiles have an opportunity to receive the fulness of gospel and then they start to reject it.

Ok. I gather that the fulness of the Gentiles begins in 1830 if I understand you correctly.
  
Based on the fact that some Gentiles have already rejected what the LDS believe is the fulness 
of the gospel, has the times of the Gentiles already been fulfilled?  And if yes, when?  Or is 
this referring to all the Gentiles or a majority of them needing to reject it and then the times
of the Gentiles is fulfilled?
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

People view themselves in many ways that may or may not be accurate.  But the so called “lost” tribes of Israel around the world are only “lost” in a spiritual sense and need to discover their identity by entering into the new covenant by taking upon themselves the name of Christ and become a people of God in Christ, and then they come to recognize who they are.  And thus, they become eligible for the blessings of their covenants which includes the lands of their inheritance.

Do you believe the literal blood of Gentiles changes into the literal blood of Abraham when they 
enter the new covenant after being acted upon by the Holy Ghost as the seminary manual teaches?
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

I know you don’t build temples, but the fact that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost doesn’t preclude God from having people build temples for his sacred purposes.  

Temples were still important in New Testament times.

There is only one physical temple mentioned in New Testament times.

What sacred purposes do you believe the temple served for Christians prior to it being destroyed 
by the Romans?
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

 The gospel of Luke both begins and ends in the temple (for example), and Jesus said that those who overcome will be made a “pillar in the temple of my God” (Revelation 3:12).  And it’s obvious in the New Testament that God’s temples are intended to continue, because it is not until the earth is renewed and becomes celestialized and the holy city new Jerusalem comes out of heaven that it finally becomes noteworthy that there will be “no temple therein for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it” (Revelation 21:22).  Why would the biblical text draw attention to the absence of a temple in that city if temples were done away at Christ’s first coming as you suppose?

The Old Testament system, the Law (involving the temple rituals, feasts, and sacrifices) remained 
in force until the Atonement of Christ.   At that point, the temple had no bearing on a Christian's 
salvation.  With the temple veil tearing in two, the way was opened for every believer to approach 
the holy of holies by the blood of Christ. The high priest was no longer necessary to act as mediator 
for the people because Jesus assumed this role (see Hebrews chapters 9 and 10, especially Hebrews 
10:19-22). That is why we don't need the high priests of the LDS Church or priests of the Roman 
Catholic Church.

We do have evidence that the Christians still went to the temple to pray, but other than that they 
did not participate in the Old Testament system, with the exception of an isolated incident by 
Paul.  What Paul did that once is not a model for all believers.

In the New Testament, specifically in the book of Acts, there's a significant moment in Acts 15 
where the early church leaders, including the apostles, discussed what requirements should be 
placed on Gentile converts to Christianity. This event is often referred to as the Jerusalem 
Council. It was about whether Gentiles should keep the Law of Moses, which included the cleansing 
ordinances in the temple (for waiting periods, childbirth, menstruation, nocturnal emissions, and 
contact with a dead body as some examples).

In Acts 15:19-20, James, who was a leader in the Jerusalem church, summarizes the decision by 
saying:

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to 
God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, 
and from things strangled, and from blood".

So, the apostles and other leaders determined that the Gentiles did not need to follow the full 
Law of Moses but should observe certain guidelines to maintain unity and purity within the early 
church. 

These guidelines were:

Abstaining from food sacrificed to idols.
Abstaining from fornication (sexual immorality).
Abstaining from things strangled and from blood.

This decision helped to clarify things for Gentile converts and eased their integration into the 
early Christian community.

No temple ordinances were required for the Gentile and Israelite Christians.

Regarding Revelation 3:12 ("Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God…"), 
this is most likely a picture of the temple in heaven. This is described in Revelation 7:13-15 
and Revelation 11:19.

"And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? 
and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they 
which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the 
blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in 
his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them".

"And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his 
testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great 
hail".

A temple recommend issued by an LDS bishop is not required.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

And you are right, the promise of their land inheritance is already mentioned in the Bible: “thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 28:14).  And, speaking during the high point of Israel’s existence at the time of David (and thus certainly with Israel in mind), it is written “they shall inherit the earth” (Psalm 37:9, 11, 22).  

So you really don’t believe that at all?  Why are you so insistent on excluding Israel from inheriting the earth?

In that case, the Israelites would have the entire earth as their land of inheritance. America 
is not preeminent.  Let's not forget the meek. The meek (also including Gentiles) would also 
inherit the earth.   

The nitty-gritty details are where this land is and how large it is.  America is not described 
in the Bible as their specific land of inheritance the way the land of Israel is.

America, specifically Missouri, becomes preeminent in Doctrine and Covenants. The Book of Mormon 
mentions a land of promise and inheritance but we could locate it in Russia or Australia as some 
have speculated it refers to somewhere in America.  

I wonder.  Is the LDS teaching about America being that land is doctrine or just speculation?
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

But they are allotted the entire world (as scripture says), and the choice lands promised to them in Canaan are symbolic of the covenant and them keeping their covenants.

The choice land above all lands in Ether 13:2 is believed to be America, not Canaan.

How does that fit into the parable of Jacob 5, which speaks of some scattering of the branches 
to various parts of the world?  Is it the first (Jacob 5:21, the poorest of the entire vineyard), 
the second (Jacob 5:23, even poorer than the first, really making the second the poorest of the 
vineyard), or the third (Jacob 5:25, a good land, later described as choice land above all other 
lands in the vineyard (Jacob 5:43)?
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, and that happens shortly after the two writing tablets (records) of Joseph and Judah (the Book of Mormon and the Bible) come together in the hand of the prophet, as it says in the verses just prior to that (and we already discussed that too).

"Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in 
the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with 
the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand".

That hand belongs to Ezekiel, not Joseph Smith or to any other prophet.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

You seem so sure of that despite what God says he is giving to Jacob and Joseph and to all the “meek” and those who “wait on the Lord” who are not cut off from the people of God in scripture (Psalm 37:9, 11, 22).

Are you only against the idea of Jacob receiving America, or do you also believe they shouldn’t be allowed to receive any lands other than the land of Canaan?

What I don’t understand is why you believe that God, who blessed Abraham (Genesis 22:17) and Jacob (Genesis 32:12) that their seed shall be “as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude” or multiplied as the “stars of the heaven”, will confine all those descendants of the Israelites from all around the world to a land area that will be too small to sustain them, especially when God says they will “inherit the earth”.  Are the Israelites not “meek” enough?  Do they not “wait on the Lord” sufficiently?  Are they cut off from God’s people?  Do they inherit most of the earth, but they don’t get America because that would validate what “the Mormons” believe?   I sense that your prejudice against Latter-day Saint doctrine is not allowing you to accept the full scope of the promises that were given to the seed of Abraham and Jacob in the Bible.

I see the allotment of land in two separate ways.

One way is the general sense, for both the saved Jews and Gentiles.  The meek will inherit the 
earth as Christ said. It can be anywhere.

The second way is a specific land of inheritance for the saved Israelites. Many scriptural verses 
show these boundaries.

But I see something different in Doctrine and Covenants 88:17-20.  Those verses describe how the 
Earth will be sanctified and prepared to become a celestial kingdom, intended for those who have 
attained celestial glory.

The "meek" in the LDS classification of the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms are not there.

"And the redemption of the soul is through him that quickeneth all things, in whose bosom it is 
decreed that the poor and the meek of the earth shall inherit it. Therefore, it must needs be 
sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory; For after 
it hath filled the measure of its creation, it shall be crowned with glory, even with the 
presence of God the Father; That bodies who are of the celestial kingdom may possess it forever 
and ever; for, for this intent was it made and created, and for this intent are they sanctified."

The full scope of the promises given to the seed of Abraham and Jacob are realized in the land 
that God had promised them.

Where I find issue with the LDS line of thinking harkens back to what Joseph Smith said.

"The prophets have spoken and written upon it; but I will make a proclamation that will cover a 
broader ground. The whole of America is Zion itself from north to south, and is described by the 
Prophets, who declare that it is the Zion where the mountain of the Lord should be, and that it 
should be in the center of the land. When Elders shall take up and examine the old prophecies in 
the Bible, they will see it" (History of the Church, volume 6).

It's not the whole of Europe or the whole of Africa or the whole of Russia, etc. etc.  It's the 
whole of America instead. 

Then we have this part in the Book of Mormon.

"And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; 
for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance" 
(2 Nephi 1:8).

This land area is very small since there's a worry about having no place for an inheritance.  
Hardly a description of America.

Christ said, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few 
there be that find it" (Matthew 7:14).

You could probably fit all of the saved people into the land of Israel so your concerns about there 
not being enough land to sustain the saved people are overblown. Since you believe the earth will 
be celestialized (meaning an abode for celestial beings), there will be a lot of habitable space. 
Revelation 21:1 says, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first 
earth were passed away; and there was no more sea".  And then we have all those people living in 
the New Jerusalem which comes down from heaven, with all its habitable space (in the mansions).

The LDS Church has a habit of taking a prophecy about Jerusalem and applying it to itself.  
Isaiah 2:1-2 is a prime example.  Another is redefining two sticks as the Bible and the Book of 
Mormon instead of the two kingdoms of Israel (Ezekiel 37).
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

And only a few Israelites responded to the gospel message at the time of Jesus, because shortly after the resurrection of Jesus the apostles were forced to turn to the Gentiles.  “The kingdom of God” was “taken from” them “and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (Matthew 21:43)

Christ's words do not mean Israelites were to be avoided in any further gospel preaching. It just 
means the focus on evangelism would now be on the Gentiles because the Israelite population, as 
a majority, had rejected their Messiah. The apostles had not given up on reaching their people. 
In Paul's missionary travels, he went initially to the Israelites.  They were never excluded from 
gospel preaching.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

So in Luke 21:24 Jesus was saying that Jerusalem would be trodden down of the Gentiles “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled”.  My comment above in red (that you quoted) is pointing out that the “times of the Gentiles” must be happening in the day when Jerusalem would no longer be trodden down by the Gentiles or otherwise the times of the Gentiles could not be ending at that time.

Event #2 (until the "times of the Gentiles be fulfilled") does not mean event #2 begins after 
event #1 is fulfilled.  Event #2 concludes with the conclusion of event #1.  I'll explain how I 
view it a little further down.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

You should have used basketball and the Boston Celtics as an example instead (GoCeltics).

NBA, no.  NCAA, yes.  It's way more exciting.  But I'll use your Celtics as you wish.

First the passage from Luke, and then my analogy.

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is 
nigh.  Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the 
midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.  For these be 
the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.  But woe unto them 
that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress 
in the land, and wrath upon this people.  And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall 
be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until 
the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:20-24).

The Celtics were leading in the last game of the championship series against the Lakers by one 
point and with 20 seconds left. They kept passing the ball to each other, occasionally moving 
around, until the times of the game clock was fulfilled.

The "times of the game clock" does not begin when time goes to 00:00.  No more play time; the 
champion has been decided.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

And even after Acts 10 it was still “necessary” (as Paul put it), a requirement, for them to go to the Jews “first” before they went to the Gentiles.

Of course in modern times Christians have it in their heads that Christianity is for the Gentiles, so it’s easy to make the mistake of reinterpreting what Jesus said with the later teachings in mind.  But that’s not what Jesus meant at first.  But in hindsight it is easy to see the future intended scope of those words given at the great commission, it just wasn’t stated to be so at that time.

And I’m not the only one who thinks that.  See also this site:

https://edgarsreflections.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/does-matthew-2819-includes-reaching-out-to-the-gentiles/

Paul would first go to the Jews. When they rejected his message, he went to the Gentiles. But 
wherever he went, he did not exclude Jews from hearing the gospel.  Neither did Peter.

Jesus did not say to go into the entire world and to only preach to the Jews. The Great Commission 
is for all peoples.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

Christ’s message and atonement does indeed extend to all people, including the Gentiles.  But Christ’s personal mission was only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” as he clearly stated:

“I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)   Or as the NASB translation says it, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

So obviously his statement about “other sheep” in John 10:16 cannot be about the Gentiles, because then Matthew 15:24 would be contradicting John 10:16.  So saying the “other sheep” are the Gentiles is simply a bad interpretation and promotes the idea that the Bible contradicts itself.

Christ is the Good Shepherd.  All saved believers are viewed as members of the kingdom of God; 
his sheepfold.

Jesus focused his ministry on the people of Israel, God's lost sheep" (Matthew 10:5–6; 15:24–27). 
At Pentecost, God-fearing Jews from various nations were converted to Christianity (Acts 2:5). 
But, eventually, Peter and Paul would take the message of Christ's salvation to the Gentiles and 
to other parts of the Roman world (Acts 10:1 - 11:30; 13). The true mission of God has always 
been to have one flock comprised of disciples from every tribe and language and people and nation 
(Revelation 5:9; Matthew 28:18–19; Isaiah 49:6).

The "one flock" is the New Testament Christian church made up of both Jews (from the sheepfold) 
and Gentiles (the other sheep). Of "the other sheep," Jesus said, "I must bring them also."  In 
Romans 11:11–24, the apostle Paul compares the people of Israel to the natural branches of an 
olive tree and the Gentiles to the wild branches of an uncultivated olive tree. Most of the 
natural branches were "broken off" because they rejected their Messiah. In the sheep analogy, 
these Jews had failed to enter the fold. The wild branches (the Gentiles) were "grafted in among 
the others (Romans 11:17). The Gentiles were made partakers of God's salvation. Jesus has brought 
them into the sheepfold. Together, Jews and Gentiles - all those who belong to the Good 
Shepherd—now make up the "one flock", and Jesus is their Shepherd.

The apostles would later come to understand the "other sheep" as the Gentiles, not the scattered 
tribes in the New World as Latter-day Saints believe.

John 10:16 ("And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they 
shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd") does not contradict Matthew 
15:24.  That part in Matthew is about Christ's mortal ministry.  The part in John is future-looking; 
about Christ preaching to the Gentiles when He is building His church through evangelism.

There is also shown in Ephesians 2:11-19.

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision 
by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;  That at that time ye were 
without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of 
promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes 
were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, 
and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the 
enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one 
new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, 
having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to 
them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now
therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of 
the household of God".

Jehovah's Witnesses do not understand who the other sheep are also.  They segregate the sheepfold 
into two groups.  The little flock, who goes to heaven (only 144,000), and the other sheep (the 
great crowd) who inherit Paradise Earth.

Source: The Other Sheep and the New Covenant (February 1 1998 Watchtower)
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1998085
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

You realize that the Bible is talking about real people and real situations, right?   Do you really think that because scripture never mentions the seventy again that they simply disappeared and aren’t of any significance to Jesus for the reason he sent them out?

I realize that if you are using only the Bible as a source of truth then there is not enough information in the Bible on the seventy to really draw any conclusions one way or another.  But that also just shows that God never intended the Bible to be used independently of him giving revelation to a divinely appointed leadership of apostles and prophets.  Jesus knew why he sent out the seventy, and he still knows it, and Jesus directs his church today and it has a worldwide scope.  So apparently Jesus has a purpose for the seventy even today.

Biblically speaking, the seventy were commissioned to go where Jesus would eventually go in person.  
It was a one-time special outreach.  

"After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his 
face into every city and place, whither he himself would come" (Luke 10:1).

The method by which they were to go is explained in verses 2-11.  Two by two, and to remain in 
the same house in the city they visited. They were commissioned to heal the sick and preach (verse 
9).  They even cast out demonic spirits (verse 17).  The method, actions, and results of the 
Seventy or Seventies of the LDS Church do not resemble those commissioned by Christ in significant 
ways.

There is no mention of the seventy being commissioned by Jesus when he supposedly visited the 
Nephites either.

In a biblical sense, the 70 would be replaced by evangelists. We don't create offices and then 
set a predefined number within a set.

I'm surprised that the LDS Church did not create an office named Seven and Sevens based on what 
we see in Acts 6:1-7.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

Without a divinely inspired governing body what are you left with?  Answer:  A free-for-all on scriptural interpretation resulting in every wind of doctrine.

Yes. We can see these winds of doctrine in older church publications called "The Ways to Perfection" 
and "Doctrines of Salvation", to name a few.

https://ia904604.us.archive.org/27/items/waytoperfections00smit/waytoperfections00smit.pdf
https://josephsmithfoundation.org/doctrines-of-salvation/

I make no distinction between a doctrine or a teaching or a gospel principle.  It doesn't matter 
who said it or when. What matters is if it's true or false.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

The apostles and prophets are called of God, both in Bible times and now, and they are given revelation from God pertaining to the church.  But the apostles and prophets, both anciently and in modern times, are human and they always come into their callings with their human prejudices, traditions, and cultural practices, some of which may be inappropriate in Christ’s church, and these men can (and do sometimes) make mistakes.  And sometimes God lets these incorrect ideas get worked out over time until the leaders ask questions, and corrections are made.

Meaning that LDS Presidents can lead members astray.  They should get rid of that teaching in 
Gospel Principles ("The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of 
this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I 
were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place").
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

And at the time of the restoration in the early 1800’s, the curse of Cain and the curse of Ham doctrines were at the height of Protestant acceptance in North America.  And even though Joseph Smith had accepted and ordained black individuals to the priesthood, the popular Protestant doctrine of that era made its way into church doctrine, primarily through Brigham Young.  It’s an unfortunate thing.

Those ordinations were done before Joseph Smith was supposedly corrected by God.  See

https://bhroberts.org/records/RTW7tb-0AFW3e/caleb_a_shreeve_sr_writes_letter_to_first_presidency_stating_that_joseph_smith_withdrew_the_priesthood_from_elijah_able?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3AwJJuTH-yo3rmGK3T-DFjXPRtOEc3bnt4M2L8HnZPz8lF_KuKdzJNtT0_aem_vr5VnLCLdG3bkTt5fh6BPw

The relevant part begins with:

In relating the conversational experience dialogue that took place between two faithful friends 
and devoted LDS, several questions naturally arises:

Why was a period of over five years allowed to lapse (March 3, 1836 to April 4, 1841) from the 
time Elijah Able was officially ordained an Elder and a Seventy, prior to the Prophet Joseph 
rescinding Able's ordination to the Priesthood?

...

Thus his deep concern and petition to the Lord for enlightenment and direction. The Lord gave the 
Prophet the answer, but it filled him with sorrow, thus his downcast spirit and tears when he 
informed Brother Able of the Lord's commandment for the Priesthood withdrawal.

The ordination of Black individuals in Protestant churches varied significantly across different 
denominations and regions. Generally, the 18th and 19th centuries saw some early efforts toward 
inclusion. In the United States, the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, founded in 1816 
by Richard Allen, was one of the first denominations to ordain Black ministers. Other denominations 
followed at different times, with significant milestones occurring during the Civil Rights Movement 
of the 1950s and 1960s, which further pushed for racial equality within church leadership.

The first known Black Catholic priest in the Americas was likely Father Augustin de Jesus, who 
was ordained in 1874 in the United States. The systematic ordination of Black clergy in the U.S. 
did not gain momentum until the 19th century. The establishment of Black dioceses and the 
ordination of Black Catholic priests increased in the 20th century, especially post-Vatican II 
(1962-1965), which emphasized inclusivity and diversity. The first Black bishop in the U.S., 
Joseph Francis, was appointed in 1970.

The LDS Church finally followed suit in 1978.

So, we see there was apostasy in the LDS church, the Protestant church, and the Catholic church.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

 We have already discussed why the “gates of hades” are intended to keep people in the grave and why the gates of the grave would not prevail against the church (because of the resurrection) and why that statement has nothing to do with Jesus saying the church would never fall into apostasy.  And we already discussed why the apostasy prophecy by Paul was already beginning in his day (as Paul stated) and it has already been fulfilled.  It happened shortly after the apostles “departed”.

Yes, there would be some apostasy.  But the LDS Church teaches there was a total apostasy. The 
1997 Gospel Principles terms this as the destruction of the church being complete.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

The Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants are part of the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they are in complete harmony with the Holy Bible, so I didn’t need to point this out.

Show me in scripture where Heavenly Father is an exalted man or that Jesus Christ was the first 
born son of heavenly parents who became a God.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

The Bible does not contradict this teaching.

You could teach anything you want by using the argument that the Bible does not contradict a 
teaching because it's neither supported nor refuted by it.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

This is not what Latter-day Saints teach at all.  We affirm that God is from “everlasting to everlasting” (Moroni 7:22, Doctrine and Covenants 20:17 and 61:1).

Yes. I know.  That is not what Joseph Smith affirmed.

"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".

"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, page 442).

https://ia804605.us.archive.org/29/items/articlesoffaith00talm/articlesoffaith00talm.pdf
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

  I don’t think it’s difficult at all, God does identify key aspects of himself clearly in the Bible.  He is the “God of gods”, and there is “none like him” as no other God compares to him.

Latter-day Saints teach they can become like him. This precludes becoming exactly like him.  

From the Exaltation chapter in Gospel Principles: "They will have everything that our Heavenly 
Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

Even in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had become like God, but they were not God (Genesis 3:22).
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

He is our “Father”, the “Father of spirits”, And we are the same kind of being as God, just as the Bible teaches.

I am familiar with the LDS teaching that we are [present tense] gods right now, even in our 
sinful state.  Apparently we become gods [future tense] when we are exalted (Doctrine and 
Covenants 132:19-20).
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

 Of course you do.  Interpreting the Bible however we want gives people freedom to believe whatever wind of doctrine we want, right?

Right.  Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the Bible to teach Michael the Archangel is Jesus.  For 
Latter-day Saints, he is Adam.  Gabriel is believed to be Noah.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

You can’t understand the Trinity, Trinitarians can’t understand the Trinity, so why would you expect Joseph Smith to understand it?  But there is more than one way that you are judging Joseph Smith unfairly.

The Trinity is either one God or three Gods.  Which is it for you?

At one point, the Holy Ghost was not even regarded as being in the Godhead.  See 
https://www.lecturesonfaith.com/5/

"There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power 
over all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether 
visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or 
throughout the immensity of space—They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a 
personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who 
was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man".

This was later reversed to the Father being a personage of flesh and bones.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

Speculation isn’t the same as revealed doctrine.  And some of what you say above is Biblical and even taught in early Christianity.  

For example, how is Jesus the “first begotten” of the Father as it says in Hebrews 1:6, or that he is our “brother” as stated in Hebrews 2:17-18, or that he was “begotten of the Father before all worlds” as it says in the 381 AD version of the Nicene Creed, or “begotten before the worlds” as stated in the Athanasian Creed?

Jesus is also referred to as being the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18).

Begotten in the case of Christ does not mean created.  Firstborn does not always mean first born 
either.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

I can’t help it if some people don’t believe what the Bible says about Jesus.  But just because someone else doesn’t believe what the Bible says it doesn’t mean what we believe is a “different Jesus”.

Would you classify Jesus of the Jehovah's Witnesses (aka Michael the Archangel) as a different Jesus?
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, just as Jesus had commanded his apostles earlier to go only to the Jews and not to the Gentiles, and he hadn’t changed that commandment at the time of the great commission.  Just because you reinterpret the phrase “all the world” as the Gentiles doesn’t make it so.

That's if you believe "all the world" is initially only Israelites.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

They foretold it and knew a restoration would be needed for the church just as a restoration would be needed for Israel.

The church Jesus established has only one high priest, Himself.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

So when people try to say that Latter-day Saints teach of “a different God” or of a “different Jesus” than that taught by Jesus and the apostles, it causes me to wonder if they’ve ever read the Bible.  Because we believe and teach everything the Bible says about God the Father and Jesus.

Heavenly Father is not an exalted man. And Jesus is not the first born spirit child of heavenly 
parent who became a God.

That is why I consider the LDS as teaching a different Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.

I also consider Jehovah's Witnesses teaching a different Jesus.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

Even if we ignore the fact that you are misinterpreting the verse by having the eternal God say something nonsensical about having a “God” formed “before” or “after him (which can’t happen – he is ETERNAL), your argument fails on how it would supposedly refute “LDS theology”.  No God is “formed” from an LDS point of view.  God is an eternal Spirit, and we are eternal spirits.  We can become like our Father and partake of all that he has, but this comes through our obedience and experience, and it’s not something that is “formed”.  Those who “overcome” will sit with God in his throne.  It’s not something “formed” for them.

I provided some LDS teachings which show Heavenly Father and Jesus became (were formed into) 
Gods.  I think even you believe you are an eternal being but that will not make you an Eternal 
God, if according to LDS teachings, you become God and then start telling people you are the 
Eternal God - because you have not eternally existed as God.  You will supposedly be exalted (a 
God being formed).  Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20 says the same thing, although lower case 
"g" (for god) is used.

The LDS version of Heavenly Father is an exalted man. Prior to his exaltation, he is not God.  
He is a God who is formed after following his path of progression until he achieved exaltation.

The same thing was taught in the 1997 Gospel Principles, but was later edited out.

All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like him—a 
god. He has said, "Behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and 
eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39).

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf

So, gods (a god like Heavenly Father) are formed.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

And those who become gods by following his precepts will inherit all that God has (“all things”)

That's what I have been saying … "all those who become gods".  Gods in LDS theology have been 
formed in the past and they will be formed in the future.  This includes the LDS version of 
Heavenly Father. 

Joseph Smith even taught there was a Father before Heavenly Father.

George Q. Cannon (of the First Presidency) taught likewise.

"Well, who was His [Jesus'] father? Why God was His father; and who was God's father? Why God 
had a father like you and I have" (Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. 
Cannon).
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

Oh really?   Psalm 86:8 reads, “Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.”   And you read that as, “Among the corrupt human judges there is none like unto thee, O Lord, neither are there any works among the corrupt human judges like unto thy works”?  Is that what you think that means?   That makes it sound as if he is the best corrupt human judge that there is!  

Why would God say such a thing unless “among the gods” there really is “NONE like unto” him.  Our God, the one God who is the one God above all, is beyond comparison.

There is a reference to pagan gods which are regarded as deities.  The Israelites regarded them 
as their true gods so they worshipped them.

As for Psalm 86, I believe the gods there are referring to corrupt human judges.

Being God over them does not make God the best corrupt human judge there is.  In similar fashion, 
God being the Father of many sinful beings does not make Him the best sinful human.

I think the LDS believe the gods in Psalm 86 is a reference to some pre-mortal council and the 
gods are the spirit children of Heavenly Father who shouted for joy when they heard the plan of 
salvation. Or maybe these gods are other Deities (Heavenly Fathers) from other realms that were 
also invited to some grand council in Heaven.

"Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy 
works." (Psalm 86:8)

This can be interpreted as a recognition of God's supreme power over any other beings considered 
as gods, but it doesn't specifically depict a heavenly council of deities.

Also, "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord" is not referring to true Gods because 
there are many true Gods like Heavenly Father in LDS theology.

If context = Earth, there is none like the Father, except the Son and the Holy Spirit.

If context = everything ever created by any God in existence, then there are many like Heavenly
Father of Earth.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

Therefore, to Paul, false gods and idols are not gods at all, they are “nothing”.   So, when Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 that “there be gods many, and lords many” he can’t possibly be referring to false gods or Paul would be contradicting himself.  Paul was fully aware that other “gods” exist in reality.

The context of 1 Corinthians 8 is about the pagan city of Corinth.  It was a land of many false 
gods, whom the Corinthians were worshipping as true gods.  Some of these gods were Jupiter, Venus,  
Neptune, and Mars.

Paul comes there and preaches to them the true God of Earth in the backstop of their collection 
of false gods, whom they regarded as divine.  He doesn't come in and reveal that they are 
worshipping true Gods of other worlds and that they must only worship the God of Earth.

Yes. Paul was fully aware that other "gods" exist in reality, but they are pagan deities.

As in mentioned in Psalm, 
    • They have eyes but cannot see.
    • They have ears but cannot hear.
    • They have feet but cannot walk.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

But all those verses [Amulek speaking with Zeezrom] do affirm the unity of God

By that logic, the unity of God = one God = all Christians being united with God = all Christians 
are one God.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

Ok, but then you obviously don’t believe Jesus when he says, “that they may be one even as we are one”.

"They" [Christians] being one like Heavenly Father and Jesus being one does not make them (the 
"they", the Christians) Gods.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

Where?  You posted a lot of speculation, but all of our actual teachings align with scripture perfectly.

Some being becoming a God and Heavenly Father of our Earth or Jesus becoming the first born child 
of heavenly parents and then becoming a God does not align with any scripture.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

You are projecting a lot of speculative ideas in the paragraph above, and those things go far beyond what the scriptures teach and what Joseph Smith taught.

Joseph Smith and others in the LDS Church went far beyond what the scriptures teach.  I addressed 
them earlier. You never did affirm those LDS teachings, particularly those of Joseph Smith, as 
true.
 

On 10/20/2024 at 7:57 PM, InCognitus said:

I didn’t sense any sarcasm in the blessing Jacob gave to Joseph stating that his seed would become a multitude of Gentiles.  Why do you?  (That’s an honest question).

My sarcasm was not about that. I was indicating in reverse mode that I don't believe literal 
Israelites being sown among literal Gentiles makes them literal Gentiles any more than literal 
Gentiles being sown among literal Israelites makes them literal Israelites. 

I also don't believe the blood of a Gentile turns into the literal blood of Abraham when he is 
acted upon by the Holy Ghost as taught in the LDS seminary manual.

[CV75]

On 11/5/2024 at 9:51 AM, theplains said:

1 Peter 2:5 mentions those in the royal priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices to God.

What are some examples of spiritual sacrifices offered to God by LDS high priests?  
 
For those LDS males who did not (before 1978) and do not (after 1978) hold the priesthood, what 
spiritual sacrifices did (do) they offer?
 

You also forgot to mention verse 20.  "And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering 
unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, 
and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the children of Israel 
bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord".

Not to Salt Lake City Utah, Independence Missouri, or any other place in America.
 

Don't you men from a father to all of his worthy sons?
 

Ok. I gather that the fulness of the Gentiles begins in 1830 if I understand you correctly.
  
Based on the fact that some Gentiles have already rejected what the LDS believe is the fulness 
of the gospel, has the times of the Gentiles already been fulfilled?  And if yes, when?  Or is 
this referring to all the Gentiles or a majority of them needing to reject it and then the times
of the Gentiles is fulfilled?
 

Do you believe the literal blood of Gentiles changes into the literal blood of Abraham when they 
enter the new covenant after being acted upon by the Holy Ghost as the seminary manual teaches?
 

There is only one physical temple mentioned in New Testament times.

What sacred purposes do you believe the temple served for Christians prior to it being destroyed 
by the Romans?
 

The Old Testament system, the Law (involving the temple rituals, feasts, and sacrifices) remained 
in force until the Atonement of Christ.   At that point, the temple had no bearing on a Christian's 
salvation.  With the temple veil tearing in two, the way was opened for every believer to approach 
the holy of holies by the blood of Christ. The high priest was no longer necessary to act as mediator 
for the people because Jesus assumed this role (see Hebrews chapters 9 and 10, especially Hebrews 
10:19-22). That is why we don't need the high priests of the LDS Church or priests of the Roman 
Catholic Church.

We do have evidence that the Christians still went to the temple to pray, but other than that they 
did not participate in the Old Testament system, with the exception of an isolated incident by 
Paul.  What Paul did that once is not a model for all believers.

In the New Testament, specifically in the book of Acts, there's a significant moment in Acts 15 
where the early church leaders, including the apostles, discussed what requirements should be 
placed on Gentile converts to Christianity. This event is often referred to as the Jerusalem 
Council. It was about whether Gentiles should keep the Law of Moses, which included the cleansing 
ordinances in the temple (for waiting periods, childbirth, menstruation, nocturnal emissions, and 
contact with a dead body as some examples).

In Acts 15:19-20, James, who was a leader in the Jerusalem church, summarizes the decision by 
saying:

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to 
God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, 
and from things strangled, and from blood".

So, the apostles and other leaders determined that the Gentiles did not need to follow the full 
Law of Moses but should observe certain guidelines to maintain unity and purity within the early 
church. 

These guidelines were:

Abstaining from food sacrificed to idols.
Abstaining from fornication (sexual immorality).
Abstaining from things strangled and from blood.

This decision helped to clarify things for Gentile converts and eased their integration into the 
early Christian community.

No temple ordinances were required for the Gentile and Israelite Christians.

Regarding Revelation 3:12 ("Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God…"), 
this is most likely a picture of the temple in heaven. This is described in Revelation 7:13-15 
and Revelation 11:19.

"And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? 
and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they 
which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the 
blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in 
his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them".

"And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his 
testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great 
hail".

A temple recommend issued by an LDS bishop is not required.
 

In that case, the Israelites would have the entire earth as their land of inheritance. America 
is not preeminent.  Let's not forget the meek. The meek (also including Gentiles) would also 
inherit the earth.   

The nitty-gritty details are where this land is and how large it is.  America is not described 
in the Bible as their specific land of inheritance the way the land of Israel is.

America, specifically Missouri, becomes preeminent in Doctrine and Covenants. The Book of Mormon 
mentions a land of promise and inheritance but we could locate it in Russia or Australia as some 
have speculated it refers to somewhere in America.  

I wonder.  Is the LDS teaching about America being that land is doctrine or just speculation?
 

The choice land above all lands in Ether 13:2 is believed to be America, not Canaan.

How does that fit into the parable of Jacob 5, which speaks of some scattering of the branches 
to various parts of the world?  Is it the first (Jacob 5:21, the poorest of the entire vineyard), 
the second (Jacob 5:23, even poorer than the first, really making the second the poorest of the 
vineyard), or the third (Jacob 5:25, a good land, later described as choice land above all other 
lands in the vineyard (Jacob 5:43)?
 

"Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in 
the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with 
the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand".

That hand belongs to Ezekiel, not Joseph Smith or to any other prophet.
 

I see the allotment of land in two separate ways.

One way is the general sense, for both the saved Jews and Gentiles.  The meek will inherit the 
earth as Christ said. It can be anywhere.

The second way is a specific land of inheritance for the saved Israelites. Many scriptural verses 
show these boundaries.

But I see something different in Doctrine and Covenants 88:17-20.  Those verses describe how the 
Earth will be sanctified and prepared to become a celestial kingdom, intended for those who have 
attained celestial glory.

The "meek" in the LDS classification of the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms are not there.

"And the redemption of the soul is through him that quickeneth all things, in whose bosom it is 
decreed that the poor and the meek of the earth shall inherit it. Therefore, it must needs be 
sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory; For after 
it hath filled the measure of its creation, it shall be crowned with glory, even with the 
presence of God the Father; That bodies who are of the celestial kingdom may possess it forever 
and ever; for, for this intent was it made and created, and for this intent are they sanctified."

The full scope of the promises given to the seed of Abraham and Jacob are realized in the land 
that God had promised them.

Where I find issue with the LDS line of thinking harkens back to what Joseph Smith said.

"The prophets have spoken and written upon it; but I will make a proclamation that will cover a 
broader ground. The whole of America is Zion itself from north to south, and is described by the 
Prophets, who declare that it is the Zion where the mountain of the Lord should be, and that it 
should be in the center of the land. When Elders shall take up and examine the old prophecies in 
the Bible, they will see it" (History of the Church, volume 6).

It's not the whole of Europe or the whole of Africa or the whole of Russia, etc. etc.  It's the 
whole of America instead. 

Then we have this part in the Book of Mormon.

"And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; 
for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance" 
(2 Nephi 1:8).

This land area is very small since there's a worry about having no place for an inheritance.  
Hardly a description of America.

Christ said, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few 
there be that find it" (Matthew 7:14).

You could probably fit all of the saved people into the land of Israel so your concerns about there 
not being enough land to sustain the saved people are overblown. Since you believe the earth will 
be celestialized (meaning an abode for celestial beings), there will be a lot of habitable space. 
Revelation 21:1 says, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first 
earth were passed away; and there was no more sea".  And then we have all those people living in 
the New Jerusalem which comes down from heaven, with all its habitable space (in the mansions).

The LDS Church has a habit of taking a prophecy about Jerusalem and applying it to itself.  
Isaiah 2:1-2 is a prime example.  Another is redefining two sticks as the Bible and the Book of 
Mormon instead of the two kingdoms of Israel (Ezekiel 37).
 

Christ's words do not mean Israelites were to be avoided in any further gospel preaching. It just 
means the focus on evangelism would now be on the Gentiles because the Israelite population, as 
a majority, had rejected their Messiah. The apostles had not given up on reaching their people. 
In Paul's missionary travels, he went initially to the Israelites.  They were never excluded from 
gospel preaching.
 

Event #2 (until the "times of the Gentiles be fulfilled") does not mean event #2 begins after 
event #1 is fulfilled.  Event #2 concludes with the conclusion of event #1.  I'll explain how I 
view it a little further down.
 

NBA, no.  NCAA, yes.  It's way more exciting.  But I'll use your Celtics as you wish.

First the passage from Luke, and then my analogy.

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is 
nigh.  Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the 
midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.  For these be 
the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.  But woe unto them 
that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress 
in the land, and wrath upon this people.  And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall 
be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until 
the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:20-24).

The Celtics were leading in the last game of the championship series against the Lakers by one 
point and with 20 seconds left. They kept passing the ball to each other, occasionally moving 
around, until the times of the game clock was fulfilled.

The "times of the game clock" does not begin when time goes to 00:00.  No more play time; the 
champion has been decided.
 

Paul would first go to the Jews. When they rejected his message, he went to the Gentiles. But 
wherever he went, he did not exclude Jews from hearing the gospel.  Neither did Peter.

Jesus did not say to go into the entire world and to only preach to the Jews. The Great Commission 
is for all peoples.
 

Christ is the Good Shepherd.  All saved believers are viewed as members of the kingdom of God; 
his sheepfold.

Jesus focused his ministry on the people of Israel, God's lost sheep" (Matthew 10:5–6; 15:24–27). 
At Pentecost, God-fearing Jews from various nations were converted to Christianity (Acts 2:5). 
But, eventually, Peter and Paul would take the message of Christ's salvation to the Gentiles and 
to other parts of the Roman world (Acts 10:1 - 11:30; 13). The true mission of God has always 
been to have one flock comprised of disciples from every tribe and language and people and nation 
(Revelation 5:9; Matthew 28:18–19; Isaiah 49:6).

The "one flock" is the New Testament Christian church made up of both Jews (from the sheepfold) 
and Gentiles (the other sheep). Of "the other sheep," Jesus said, "I must bring them also."  In 
Romans 11:11–24, the apostle Paul compares the people of Israel to the natural branches of an 
olive tree and the Gentiles to the wild branches of an uncultivated olive tree. Most of the 
natural branches were "broken off" because they rejected their Messiah. In the sheep analogy, 
these Jews had failed to enter the fold. The wild branches (the Gentiles) were "grafted in among 
the others (Romans 11:17). The Gentiles were made partakers of God's salvation. Jesus has brought 
them into the sheepfold. Together, Jews and Gentiles - all those who belong to the Good 
Shepherd—now make up the "one flock", and Jesus is their Shepherd.

The apostles would later come to understand the "other sheep" as the Gentiles, not the scattered 
tribes in the New World as Latter-day Saints believe.

John 10:16 ("And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they 
shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd") does not contradict Matthew 
15:24.  That part in Matthew is about Christ's mortal ministry.  The part in John is future-looking; 
about Christ preaching to the Gentiles when He is building His church through evangelism.

There is also shown in Ephesians 2:11-19.

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision 
by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;  That at that time ye were 
without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of 
promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes 
were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, 
and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the 
enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one 
new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, 
having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to 
them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now
therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of 
the household of God".

Jehovah's Witnesses do not understand who the other sheep are also.  They segregate the sheepfold 
into two groups.  The little flock, who goes to heaven (only 144,000), and the other sheep (the 
great crowd) who inherit Paradise Earth.

Source: The Other Sheep and the New Covenant (February 1 1998 Watchtower)
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1998085
 

Biblically speaking, the seventy were commissioned to go where Jesus would eventually go in person.  
It was a one-time special outreach.  

"After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his 
face into every city and place, whither he himself would come" (Luke 10:1).

The method by which they were to go is explained in verses 2-11.  Two by two, and to remain in 
the same house in the city they visited. They were commissioned to heal the sick and preach (verse 
9).  They even cast out demonic spirits (verse 17).  The method, actions, and results of the 
Seventy or Seventies of the LDS Church do not resemble those commissioned by Christ in significant 
ways.

There is no mention of the seventy being commissioned by Jesus when he supposedly visited the 
Nephites either.

In a biblical sense, the 70 would be replaced by evangelists. We don't create offices and then 
set a predefined number within a set.

I'm surprised that the LDS Church did not create an office named Seven and Sevens based on what 
we see in Acts 6:1-7.
 

Yes. We can see these winds of doctrine in older church publications called "The Ways to Perfection" 
and "Doctrines of Salvation", to name a few.

https://ia904604.us.archive.org/27/items/waytoperfections00smit/waytoperfections00smit.pdf
https://josephsmithfoundation.org/doctrines-of-salvation/

I make no distinction between a doctrine or a teaching or a gospel principle.  It doesn't matter 
who said it or when. What matters is if it's true or false.
 

Meaning that LDS Presidents can lead members astray.  They should get rid of that teaching in 
Gospel Principles ("The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of 
this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I 
were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place").
 

Those ordinations were done before Joseph Smith was supposedly corrected by God.  See

https://bhroberts.org/records/RTW7tb-0AFW3e/caleb_a_shreeve_sr_writes_letter_to_first_presidency_stating_that_joseph_smith_withdrew_the_priesthood_from_elijah_able?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3AwJJuTH-yo3rmGK3T-DFjXPRtOEc3bnt4M2L8HnZPz8lF_KuKdzJNtT0_aem_vr5VnLCLdG3bkTt5fh6BPw

The relevant part begins with:

In relating the conversational experience dialogue that took place between two faithful friends 
and devoted LDS, several questions naturally arises:

Why was a period of over five years allowed to lapse (March 3, 1836 to April 4, 1841) from the 
time Elijah Able was officially ordained an Elder and a Seventy, prior to the Prophet Joseph 
rescinding Able's ordination to the Priesthood?

...

Thus his deep concern and petition to the Lord for enlightenment and direction. The Lord gave the 
Prophet the answer, but it filled him with sorrow, thus his downcast spirit and tears when he 
informed Brother Able of the Lord's commandment for the Priesthood withdrawal.

The ordination of Black individuals in Protestant churches varied significantly across different 
denominations and regions. Generally, the 18th and 19th centuries saw some early efforts toward 
inclusion. In the United States, the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, founded in 1816 
by Richard Allen, was one of the first denominations to ordain Black ministers. Other denominations 
followed at different times, with significant milestones occurring during the Civil Rights Movement 
of the 1950s and 1960s, which further pushed for racial equality within church leadership.

The first known Black Catholic priest in the Americas was likely Father Augustin de Jesus, who 
was ordained in 1874 in the United States. The systematic ordination of Black clergy in the U.S. 
did not gain momentum until the 19th century. The establishment of Black dioceses and the 
ordination of Black Catholic priests increased in the 20th century, especially post-Vatican II 
(1962-1965), which emphasized inclusivity and diversity. The first Black bishop in the U.S., 
Joseph Francis, was appointed in 1970.

The LDS Church finally followed suit in 1978.

So, we see there was apostasy in the LDS church, the Protestant church, and the Catholic church.
 

Yes, there would be some apostasy.  But the LDS Church teaches there was a total apostasy. The 
1997 Gospel Principles terms this as the destruction of the church being complete.
 

Show me in scripture where Heavenly Father is an exalted man or that Jesus Christ was the first 
born son of heavenly parents who became a God.
 

You could teach anything you want by using the argument that the Bible does not contradict a 
teaching because it's neither supported nor refuted by it.
 

Yes. I know.  That is not what Joseph Smith affirmed.

"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".

"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, page 442).

https://ia804605.us.archive.org/29/items/articlesoffaith00talm/articlesoffaith00talm.pdf
 

Latter-day Saints teach they can become like him. This precludes becoming exactly like him.  

From the Exaltation chapter in Gospel Principles: "They will have everything that our Heavenly 
Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

Even in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had become like God, but they were not God (Genesis 3:22).
 

I am familiar with the LDS teaching that we are [present tense] gods right now, even in our 
sinful state.  Apparently we become gods [future tense] when we are exalted (Doctrine and 
Covenants 132:19-20).
 

Right.  Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the Bible to teach Michael the Archangel is Jesus.  For 
Latter-day Saints, he is Adam.  Gabriel is believed to be Noah.
 

The Trinity is either one God or three Gods.  Which is it for you?

At one point, the Holy Ghost was not even regarded as being in the Godhead.  See 
https://www.lecturesonfaith.com/5/

"There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power 
over all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether 
visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or 
throughout the immensity of space—They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a 
personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who 
was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man".

This was later reversed to the Father being a personage of flesh and bones.
 

Jesus is also referred to as being the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18).

Begotten in the case of Christ does not mean created.  Firstborn does not always mean first born 
either.
 

Would you classify Jesus of the Jehovah's Witnesses (aka Michael the Archangel) as a different Jesus?
 

That's if you believe "all the world" is initially only Israelites.
 

The church Jesus established has only one high priest, Himself.
 

Heavenly Father is not an exalted man. And Jesus is not the first born spirit child of heavenly 
parent who became a God.

That is why I consider the LDS as teaching a different Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.

I also consider Jehovah's Witnesses teaching a different Jesus.
 

I provided some LDS teachings which show Heavenly Father and Jesus became (were formed into) 
Gods.  I think even you believe you are an eternal being but that will not make you an Eternal 
God, if according to LDS teachings, you become God and then start telling people you are the 
Eternal God - because you have not eternally existed as God.  You will supposedly be exalted (a 
God being formed).  Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20 says the same thing, although lower case 
"g" (for god) is used.

The LDS version of Heavenly Father is an exalted man. Prior to his exaltation, he is not God.  
He is a God who is formed after following his path of progression until he achieved exaltation.

The same thing was taught in the 1997 Gospel Principles, but was later edited out.

All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like him—a 
god. He has said, "Behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and 
eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39).

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf

So, gods (a god like Heavenly Father) are formed.
 

That's what I have been saying … "all those who become gods".  Gods in LDS theology have been 
formed in the past and they will be formed in the future.  This includes the LDS version of 
Heavenly Father. 

Joseph Smith even taught there was a Father before Heavenly Father.

George Q. Cannon (of the First Presidency) taught likewise.

"Well, who was His [Jesus'] father? Why God was His father; and who was God's father? Why God 
had a father like you and I have" (Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. 
Cannon).
 

There is a reference to pagan gods which are regarded as deities.  The Israelites regarded them 
as their true gods so they worshipped them.

As for Psalm 86, I believe the gods there are referring to corrupt human judges.

Being God over them does not make God the best corrupt human judge there is.  In similar fashion, 
God being the Father of many sinful beings does not make Him the best sinful human.

I think the LDS believe the gods in Psalm 86 is a reference to some pre-mortal council and the 
gods are the spirit children of Heavenly Father who shouted for joy when they heard the plan of 
salvation. Or maybe these gods are other Deities (Heavenly Fathers) from other realms that were 
also invited to some grand council in Heaven.

"Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy 
works." (Psalm 86:8)

This can be interpreted as a recognition of God's supreme power over any other beings considered 
as gods, but it doesn't specifically depict a heavenly council of deities.

Also, "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord" is not referring to true Gods because 
there are many true Gods like Heavenly Father in LDS theology.

If context = Earth, there is none like the Father, except the Son and the Holy Spirit.

If context = everything ever created by any God in existence, then there are many like Heavenly
Father of Earth.
 

The context of 1 Corinthians 8 is about the pagan city of Corinth.  It was a land of many false 
gods, whom the Corinthians were worshipping as true gods.  Some of these gods were Jupiter, Venus,  
Neptune, and Mars.

Paul comes there and preaches to them the true God of Earth in the backstop of their collection 
of false gods, whom they regarded as divine.  He doesn't come in and reveal that they are 
worshipping true Gods of other worlds and that they must only worship the God of Earth.

Yes. Paul was fully aware that other "gods" exist in reality, but they are pagan deities.

As in mentioned in Psalm, 
    • They have eyes but cannot see.
    • They have ears but cannot hear.
    • They have feet but cannot walk.
 

By that logic, the unity of God = one God = all Christians being united with God = all Christians 
are one God.
 

"They" [Christians] being one like Heavenly Father and Jesus being one does not make them (the 
"they", the Christians) Gods.
 

Some being becoming a God and Heavenly Father of our Earth or Jesus becoming the first born child 
of heavenly parents and then becoming a God does not align with any scripture.
 

Joseph Smith and others in the LDS Church went far beyond what the scriptures teach.  I addressed 
them earlier. You never did affirm those LDS teachings, particularly those of Joseph Smith, as 
true.
 

My sarcasm was not about that. I was indicating in reverse mode that I don't believe literal 
Israelites being sown among literal Gentiles makes them literal Gentiles any more than literal 
Gentiles being sown among literal Israelites makes them literal Israelites. 

I also don't believe the blood of a Gentile turns into the literal blood of Abraham when he is 
acted upon by the Holy Ghost as taught in the LDS seminary manual.

Regarding a point on which you've focused, do we literally become new creatures in Christ? I would say yes.

From Acts 17:26 – 31: “[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 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. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” This tells me that all people, Jew and Gentile, are of the same blood and eternal blessing.

The terms blood, nations, earth, habitation, offspring and offspring of God, and Godhead as used in this passage harken back to seed used in the Abrahamic covenant (as worded in Genesis and Abraham 2). This tells me that the covenant with Abraham, aside from the promise that the Savior would come through his lineage, differentiates between his seed (both genealogical through Isaac and recognized adoptees) on the basis of faith, repentance and obedience in aligning with the correct attributes of the Godhead. Abraham took upon himself the name of God in the same way we take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ. Who knows, linguistically, what literal name stands behind the covenant in Genesis 17/Abraham 2, which the Lord refers to as “my name.”

So, a gentile's blood literally changes into the blood of Abraham by covenant. This is literally, truly, a matter of semantic. If you would post the seminary manual quote, I can show you how that works.

In a similar manner, the inheritance refers to the whole earth as administered in different times (dispensations) and bounds of habitations (pre-Millennial, Millennial, post-Millennial). Revelation Chapter 21 shows that the ultimate scope of this blessing is the whole earth. Baby steps, which in retrospect, we wink at.

ETA: I found a couple of quotes from an earlier thread (2013!) https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61269-blood-changed/

Plus a mention in a 2018 student manual: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018/the-abrahamic-covenant?lang=eng

In my thinking, "old blood" = "old man" as "new man" used three times in the New Testament. Spasms and other such manifestations/expressions of the Holy Ghost, I believe, are often culturally determined. What physical manifestations of the Holy Ghost have you experienced?

I also took the opportunity to format and edit a few words.

 

Edited November 6, 2024 by CV75

[InCognitus]

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

1 Peter 2:5 mentions those in the royal priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices to God.

You are just repeating yourself again.  I already addressed the “spiritual sacrifices” question previously in our prior discussions on this topic.  See the posts dated 07/16/2024 and 05/18/2024.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

That’s correct, as the New Testament says that the priesthood was “changed” (Hebrews 7:12), and although that verse is related to the Melchizedek priesthood it also pertains to the Levitical priesthood.  Isaiah says that when Israel is gathered again, they will be brought by the hand of the Gentiles, for which the Lord says: “And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord.”  (Isaiah 66:21)

You also forgot to mention verse 20.  "And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering 
unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, 
and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the children of Israel 
bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord".

Yes, the fact that they will be brought out of “all nations” is the gathering part prior to them getting to go to Jerusalem, just as we discussed previously.  But even prior to that the Lord says, “I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.  And I will set a sign [ensign] among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.”  (Isaiah 66:18-19)

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Not to Salt Lake City Utah, Independence Missouri, or any other place in America.

The verses don’t say anything about them not being in those places as you seem to think.  On the contrary, it says that they will be brought out of “all nations”, which obviously includes those places.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Ok. I gather that the fulness of the Gentiles begins in 1830 if I understand you correctly.
  
Based on the fact that some Gentiles have already rejected what the LDS believe is the fulness 
of the gospel, has the times of the Gentiles already been fulfilled?  And if yes, when?  Or is 
this referring to all the Gentiles or a majority of them needing to reject it and then the times
of the Gentiles is fulfilled?

You already asked the “when” question about the timing of the fulfillment, and I already gave my answer to that earlier in the thread.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Do you believe the literal blood of Gentiles changes into the literal blood of Abraham when they 
enter the new covenant after being acted upon by the Holy Ghost as the seminary manual teaches?

Jesus taught, “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Matthew 3:9)   I believe God can do it however he says he will do it.

I also think CV75 gave a sufficient answer to this question as well.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

There is only one physical temple mentioned in New Testament times.

What sacred purposes do you believe the temple served for Christians prior to it being destroyed 
by the Romans?

From the very beginning they were “continuing daily with one accord in the temple” (Acts 2:46).  They went there for prayer (Acts 3:1, 22:17) and reverenced the temple and its purposes (Acts 25:8), and Paul and other men even went to the temple for purification and to offer sacrifices (Acts 21:26, and 24:18).  

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

The Old Testament system, the Law (involving the temple rituals, feasts, and sacrifices) remained 
in force until the Atonement of Christ.   At that point, the temple had no bearing on a Christian's 
salvation.  With the temple veil tearing in two, the way was opened for every believer to approach 
the holy of holies by the blood of Christ. The high priest was no longer necessary to act as mediator 
for the people because Jesus assumed this role (see Hebrews chapters 9 and 10, especially Hebrews 
10:19-22). That is why we don't need the high priests of the LDS Church or priests of the Roman 
Catholic Church.

We no longer need the high priests to act as mediators for the atonement rituals or otherwise.  But the role of priests and high priests were not limited to those duties (they were also called to be judges in Israel, for example), and obviously priests continued in the church after Christ because otherwise the New Testament wouldn’t say that Jesus has “made us kings and priests unto God” (Revelation 1:6, 5:10).

But we have already discussed all that.  

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

We do have evidence that the Christians still went to the temple to pray, but other than that they 
did not participate in the Old Testament system, with the exception of an isolated incident by 
Paul.  What Paul did that once is not a model for all believers.

Not just by Paul, but also the men who were with him (Acts 21:26). 

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

No temple ordinances were required for the Gentile and Israelite Christians.

Where does the New Testament say that?  Or are you just stating what you believe again?

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Regarding Revelation 3:12 ("Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God…"), 
this is most likely a picture of the temple in heaven. This is described in Revelation 7:13-15 
and Revelation 11:19.

“Most likely”, you say.  But however you try to frame it, it is still evidence of God’s recognition of the importance of temples after the time of Christ and in New Testament Christianity.  In other words, temples are still important to God.

And after all of this, you still didn’t answer the question.  I’ll restate it here:

It is obvious in the New Testament that God’s temples are intended to continue, because it is not until the earth is renewed and becomes celestialized and the holy city new Jerusalem comes out of heaven that it finally becomes noteworthy that there will be “no temple therein for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it” (Revelation 21:22).  Why would the biblical text draw attention to the absence of a temple in that city if temples were done away at Christ’s first coming as you suppose?

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

And you are right, the promise of their land inheritance is already mentioned in the Bible: “thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 28:14).  And, speaking during the high point of Israel’s existence at the time of David (and thus certainly with Israel in mind), it is written “they shall inherit the earth” (Psalm 37:9, 11, 22).  

So you really don’t believe that at all?  Why are you so insistent on excluding Israel from inheriting the earth?

In that case, the Israelites would have the entire earth as their land of inheritance. America 
is not preeminent.  Let's not forget the meek. The meek (also including Gentiles) would also 
inherit the earth.   

Yes, now you are getting it.  The Israelites will have the entire earth as their land of inheritance.  That’s what the Bible says.  The “meek” includes Israelites and it also includes the Gentiles who become “Israel” (the people of God) in the covenant with Christ.  The people of God inherit the earth, and all others are “cut off” from that inheritance.  And the land promised to Abraham will also be theirs and they will be able to inhabit those lands in fulfillment of that covenant.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

The nitty-gritty details are where this land is and how large it is.  America is not described 
in the Bible as their specific land of inheritance the way the land of Israel is.

Of course not, the Bible was written from the viewpoint of the Jews centered around Judaea in the land of Israel, and it covers a portion of their history and the words of their prophets.  Why would you think that anything specifically about America would be considered relevant to them?  

After the northern tribes were scattered, we don’t find much written about them at all except for the prophesies saying they will be gathered again.  The northern tribes were called “lost” for a reason.  

Look at this Old Testament chronology.  In the chronology chart, the “kings of Judah are printed in heavy type [bold], and the kings of Israel in capitals”.  Notice that the kings of Israel are completely absent after 721 BC, because the northern tribes are gone, and they are no longer the focus of the text of the Bible from the point of view of the Jews centered around Judaea.

Since the Bible no longer mentions the kings or prophets of the northern kingdoms or anything related to them after 721 BC, did those people just cease to exist?   Obviously, they still existed somewhere, but they were no longer relevant to the focus of those in Judaea, so the Bible has very little to say about them from that point forward.  If the Bible handles previously know people groups that way, then why would you expect it to discuss America at all, since it is totally out of the focus of anyone at Judaea?  

But the lands promised to Abraham are reaffirmed frequently in the Bible because those lands are tied to the original covenant that God made with Abraham.  In addition, the Bible also makes it clear that Israel will “inherit the earth”, showing that God has much more to offer the seed of Abraham (who are numbered as the “sands of the sea” or as the “stars of heaven”) than the small land area included in the original covenant. 

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

But they are allotted the entire world (as scripture says), and the choice lands promised to them in Canaan are symbolic of the covenant and them keeping their covenants.

The choice land above all lands in Ether 13:2 is believed to be America, not Canaan.

The lands promised to them in Canaan are choice for reasons specific to that region of the world.  But the lands promised to them in the Americas are “choice above all other lands” for different reasons.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

How does that fit into the parable of Jacob 5, which speaks of some scattering of the branches 
to various parts of the world?  Is it the first (Jacob 5:21, the poorest of the entire vineyard), 
the second (Jacob 5:23, even poorer than the first, really making the second the poorest of the 
vineyard), or the third (Jacob 5:25, a good land, later described as choice land above all other 
lands in the vineyard (Jacob 5:43)?

If you are asking how the people of the book of Ether fit into the parable of the vineyard in Jacob 5, they don’t.  The people of the book of Ether (the Jaredites) pre-date Abraham by almost ten generations, and the parable of the vineyard in Jacob 5 begins when Israel is in a state of decay.  And the primary group of people known as Jaredites were wiped out roughly 600 B.C.  

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

"Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in 
the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with 
the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand".

That hand belongs to Ezekiel, not Joseph Smith or to any other prophet.

Actually, the “hand” in the verse you quoted belongs to the Lord, not Ezekiel (Ezekiel is speaking the words of the Lord in the first person).  And it can’t be Ezekiel for the fulfillment anyway, since the realization of the events described in the prophecy happen far into the future from the time of Ezekiel when the Lord shall take the children of Israel from among the heathen and gather them on every side, and then bring them into their own land.  But we’ve already discussed all of this. 

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

I see the allotment of land in two separate ways.

One way is the general sense, for both the saved Jews and Gentiles.  The meek will inherit the 
earth as Christ said. It can be anywhere.

The second way is a specific land of inheritance for the saved Israelites. Many scriptural verses 
show these boundaries.

This is what I’ve been saying all along (although clearly the “general sense” includes both saved Israelites and Gentiles).  I’m glad you finally agree.  

But God doesn’t see them as “Jews and Gentiles”.  In Romans 9-11, Paul explains that the Gentiles (the wild branches) are grafted in to the “olive tree” which is Israel. The Gentiles become part of that “tree”, and they belong to Israel.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

But I see something different in Doctrine and Covenants 88:17-20.  Those verses describe how the 
Earth will be sanctified and prepared to become a celestial kingdom, intended for those who have 
attained celestial glory.

The "meek" in the LDS classification of the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms are not there.

"And the redemption of the soul is through him that quickeneth all things, in whose bosom it is 
decreed that the poor and the meek of the earth shall inherit it. Therefore, it must needs be 
sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory; For after 
it hath filled the measure of its creation, it shall be crowned with glory, even with the 
presence of God the Father; That bodies who are of the celestial kingdom may possess it forever 
and ever; for, for this intent was it made and created, and for this intent are they sanctified."

I don’t see “something different” in Doctrine and Covenants 88:17-20, because those verses say that the poor and the meek will inherit the celestialized earth.  You aren’t making any sense in what you say above.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

The full scope of the promises given to the seed of Abraham and Jacob are realized in the land 
that God had promised them.

This is also exactly what I have been saying all along.  The land promised to Abraham is given back to them as a final symbol of full fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.  But this in no way excludes them from inheriting other lands that are also promised to them throughout the world, because the full scope of the promises given to Abraham include that his seed would be numbered as the sands of the sea.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Where I find issue with the LDS line of thinking harkens back to what Joseph Smith said.

"The prophets have spoken and written upon it; but I will make a proclamation that will cover a 
broader ground. The whole of America is Zion itself from north to south, and is described by the 
Prophets, who declare that it is the Zion where the mountain of the Lord should be, and that it 
should be in the center of the land. When Elders shall take up and examine the old prophecies in 
the Bible, they will see it" (History of the Church, volume 6).

It's not the whole of Europe or the whole of Africa or the whole of Russia, etc. etc.  It's the 
whole of America instead. 

Then we have this part in the Book of Mormon.

"And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; 
for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance" 
(2 Nephi 1:8).

This land area is very small since there's a worry about having no place for an inheritance.  
Hardly a description of America.

You are assuming that Nephi really understood the size of the continent, which he did not.  But Nephi was aware of other people groups on the continent and Nephi’s view of “this land” was relative to his own settlement.  He knew that the Lord would protect them in their own settlement (“this land”) from other nations (people groups) that were in other places on the same continent as long as his family was righteous. 

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Christ said, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few 
there be that find it" (Matthew 7:14).

You could probably fit all of the saved people into the land of Israel so your concerns about there 
not being enough land to sustain the saved people are overblown.

There are at least two big problems with what you say above.  

First, Abraham was promised that he would be multiplied “exceedingly”, and he would be the “father of many nations” (Genesis 17:2, 4-6).  The same is said of Jacob (Genesis 35:11-12) and Ephraim (Genesis 48:19).  Abraham is also promised, “I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered” (Genesis 13:16) and Jacob is told the same thing (Genesis 28:14).  Abraham is also told his “seed” shall be “as the stars of heaven” (Genesis 15:5 and 22:17), which some biblical scholars also see as an allusion to them becoming exalted as gods (the gods were considered to be as the stars of heaven, and Jesus is the “bright and morning star”), but for the sake of this discussion let’s limit this to describing the number of their seed.  Isaac is promised the same thing (Genesis 26:4).  And Abraham was promised by God, “unto thy seed will I give this land” (referring to Canaan – Genesis 12:7).

So all the seed of Abraham and Jacob, which are “as the dust of the earth” or “as the stars of heaven” will inherit the land of Canaan according to scripture.

Second, the celestializing of the earth occurs after the final resurrection (Revelation 21), and the people that will inherit the earth are all those who inherit the celestial kingdom that lived and died from the beginning of creation. 

So let’s do some math using biblical definitions to see how many people this might entail.

In the verse you quoted from Jesus (Matthew 7:14), he said speaking of receiving eternal life that there are “few there be that find it”.  We have at least one biblical definition of how many is in a “few”.  In 1 Peter 3:20, speaking of Noah and his family and how they were saved from the flood, it says of the ark: “wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water”.  Thus, according to the Bible, eight is a few. 

So let’s go with this Bible definition and assume that eight out of one hundred people would be considered as the “few” that would be saved, which is 8%. That’s actually a very conservative percentage given that every child that has died before the age of accountability will be heirs of the celestial kingdom, and I’m pretty sure Jesus didn’t have little children in mind when speaking about those who need to “find” the gate and narrow way in Matthew 7:14.  And based on historical samples, on average, 27% of newborns died in their first year of life (before modern times).  But let’s stick with 8% as a very low estimate of the percentage of the population throughout the history of the earth that will inherit the celestial kingdom.  

Now for the calculation:  Rough estimates of the total number of people who have ever lived on the earth range from 100 billion to 117 billion (and I’d be surprised if those estimates include the infants who died in their first year of life, but we’ll still go with this).  Let’s take the lower estimate of 100 billion for this example to keep it simple. 

Eight percent of 100 billion is 8 billion people.  The current population of the earth is roughly 8 billion.  And that pretty much covers it (pun intended).

So the bottom line is that your arguments above don’t add up.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

And only a few Israelites responded to the gospel message at the time of Jesus, because shortly after the resurrection of Jesus the apostles were forced to turn to the Gentiles.  “The kingdom of God” was “taken from” them “and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (Matthew 21:43)

Christ's words do not mean Israelites were to be avoided in any further gospel preaching. It just 
means the focus on evangelism would now be on the Gentiles because the Israelite population, as 
a majority, had rejected their Messiah. The apostles had not given up on reaching their people. 
In Paul's missionary travels, he went initially to the Israelites.  They were never excluded from 
gospel preaching.

That’s because the apostles at the time of Christ were first sent to the house of Israel, it was their purpose and mission.  

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Paul would first go to the Jews. When they rejected his message, he went to the Gentiles. But 
wherever he went, he did not exclude Jews from hearing the gospel.  Neither did Peter.

Jesus did not say to go into the entire world and to only preach to the Jews. The Great Commission 
is for all peoples.

The Great Commission is for all people retroactively, but not initially. 

In your post on 10/02/2024, you said (bold emphasis mine):

On 10/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, theplains said:

The vision in Acts 10 is to correct Peter's view of the Gentile.  He was still stuck in his view 
that Gentiles should not be recipients of the gospel. This vision was revealed to Peter to teach 
him that the gospel was not to be withheld from the Gentiles. 

Remember, Jesus taught the apostles for “forty days” after his resurrection (Acts 1:1-3).  Do you honestly believe that if Jesus meant for them to go to the Gentiles when he gave the great commission, that he didn’t explain that clearly enough for them to understand it during that “forty days” of teaching them?  I’m just trying to figure out how your interpretation of the great commission makes any sense given that Jesus taught them “forty days” and none of them figured that out until it had to be revealed to Peter later (in Acts 10) to start going to the Gentiles.  

Given the forty-day ministry of Jesus, why didn’t any of the apostles know that they should be going to the Gentiles until God revealed it to Peter in Acts 10?  

Can you explain how your interpretation makes any sense?

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Christ is the Good Shepherd.  All saved believers are viewed as members of the kingdom of God; 
his sheepfold.

Jesus focused his ministry on the people of Israel, God's lost sheep" (Matthew 10:5–6; 15:24–27). 
At Pentecost, God-fearing Jews from various nations were converted to Christianity (Acts 2:5). 
But, eventually, Peter and Paul would take the message of Christ's salvation to the Gentiles and 
to other parts of the Roman world (Acts 10:1 - 11:30; 13). The true mission of God has always 
been to have one flock comprised of disciples from every tribe and language and people and nation 
(Revelation 5:9; Matthew 28:18–19; Isaiah 49:6).

The "one flock" is the New Testament Christian church made up of both Jews (from the sheepfold) 
and Gentiles (the other sheep). Of "the other sheep," Jesus said, "I must bring them also."  In 
Romans 11:11–24, the apostle Paul compares the people of Israel to the natural branches of an 
olive tree and the Gentiles to the wild branches of an uncultivated olive tree. Most of the 
natural branches were "broken off" because they rejected their Messiah. In the sheep analogy, 
these Jews had failed to enter the fold. The wild branches (the Gentiles) were "grafted in among 
the others (Romans 11:17). The Gentiles were made partakers of God's salvation. Jesus has brought 
them into the sheepfold. Together, Jews and Gentiles - all those who belong to the Good 
Shepherd—now make up the "one flock", and Jesus is their Shepherd.

The apostles would later come to understand the "other sheep" as the Gentiles, not the scattered 
tribes in the New World as Latter-day Saints believe.

John 10:16 ("And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they 
shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd") does not contradict Matthew 
15:24.  That part in Matthew is about Christ's mortal ministry.  The part in John is future-looking; 
about Christ preaching to the Gentiles when He is building His church through evangelism.

There is also shown in Ephesians 2:11-19.

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision 
by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;  That at that time ye were 
without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of 
promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes 
were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, 
and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the 
enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one 
new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, 
having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to 
them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now
therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of 
the household of God".

I read the Got Questions article that you are copying from above (What is the one shepherd and one flock that Jesus talks about in John 10:16?), and you present it as showing your own view as if it is the only one that’s possible.  But you left out the part where they say, “Who are these ‘other sheep that are not of this sheep pen’? Most scholars understand that the sheep pen introduced at the beginning of the chapter represents first-century Jewish believers.”  The point here is that some scholars do not support that view, and it comes down to interpretation.

But the view that Jesus is including the Gentiles among those who would “hear his voice” contradicts what Jesus said about him only going to the “house of Israel” as explained in my prior post, and that is further demonstrated by the fact that Jesus sent his apostles to go to the Gentiles (he didn’t personally go to them).  

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Jehovah's Witnesses do not understand who the other sheep are also.  

“Also”, that’s right, both Protestants and Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t understand who the other sheep are.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Biblically speaking, the seventy were commissioned to go where Jesus would eventually go in person.  
It was a one-time special outreach.  

"After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his 
face into every city and place, whither he himself would come" (Luke 10:1).

The method by which they were to go is explained in verses 2-11.  Two by two, and to remain in 
the same house in the city they visited. They were commissioned to heal the sick and preach (verse 
9).  They even cast out demonic spirits (verse 17).  The method, actions, and results of the 
Seventy or Seventies of the LDS Church do not resemble those commissioned by Christ in significant 
ways.

There is no mention of the seventy being commissioned by Jesus when he supposedly visited the 
Nephites either.

In a biblical sense, the 70 would be replaced by evangelists. We don't create offices and then 
set a predefined number within a set.

I'm surprised that the LDS Church did not create an office named Seven and Sevens based on what 
we see in Acts 6:1-7.

You left out the part where it says they are to “Proclaim the kingdom (Luke 10:9)”. They were called to preach the gospel.

In the latter-days, the Lord has revealed that the Seventy are “called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world”, and they are “to act in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Twelve or the traveling high council, in building up the church and regulating all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles and then to the Jews” (Doctrine and Covenants 107:25 and 34).  

Whatever you want to personally believe about the Seventy is up to you.  

And you also left out describing the Seventy that were called by God prior to Israel breaking their covenant.  The Got Questions website describes them as follows:

“In Exodus 24:1–2, we read of Israel’s seventy elders: ‘Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Come up to the Lord, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. You are to worship at a distance, but Moses alone is to approach the Lord; the others must not come near. And the people may not come up with him.’  The seventy elders are mentioned as a unit and were most likely a distinct group selected from among the many other elders in Israel. Although we don’t know for certain, these seventy were probably some of the men Moses chose after taking the advice from his father-in-law, Jethro (Exodus 18:13–26). In that case, they were ‘capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain’ (Exodus 18:25), and they ‘served as judges for the people at all times’ (verse 26).” (Got Questions:  Who were the seventy elders of Israel?)

As noted above, the Seventy that were called by God early on served as administrative assistants to Moses and to administer the affairs of the people of Israel.  

And in Christ’s restored church there is the additional need to administer his church at a worldwide level, and one of the reasons he called the Seventy today is for that purpose.  We can compare duties of the Seventy today to those in the Old and New Testaments, but the circumstances of today are much different than in ancient times.  And Jesus can call those he needs to administer in his worldwide church today.

So it sounds like the restored Church has it exactly right.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

I make no distinction between a doctrine or a teaching or a gospel principle.  It doesn't matter 
who said it or when. What matters is if it's true or false.

Do you believe that the apostles and prophets in Bible times were infallible?  Do you believe they never taught or believed anything that turned out to be false?  

And what about the importance of what is true or false in other situations?  Do you think context matters to help understanding what is “true or false”?  

Do you think what you said above also applies to activities on a message board?  What if a person creates multiple usernames and sets up a false identity and claims to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when they really are not, just to try to cause confusion on doctrinal matters and to use the username as a tool for misleading others and manipulating the conversation in a message thread?  Or if a person repeatedly posts quotes from a church’s publications in a misleading way (out of context), or edits them to eliminate key information that changes the meaning of the quote, or they make claims about a quote that they know (from prior correction) to be false about that church and its teachings?  Does that matter if what they post is true or false, or not?

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

The apostles and prophets are called of God, both in Bible times and now, and they are given revelation from God pertaining to the church.  But the apostles and prophets, both anciently and in modern times, are human and they always come into their callings with their human prejudices, traditions, and cultural practices, some of which may be inappropriate in Christ’s church, and these men can (and do sometimes) make mistakes.  And sometimes God lets these incorrect ideas get worked out over time until the leaders ask questions, and corrections are made.

Meaning that LDS Presidents can lead members astray.  They should get rid of that teaching in 
Gospel Principles ("The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of 
this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I 
were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place").

I don’t think they should get rid of that teaching in that manual, because it belongs there.  That the leaders will not lead us astray does not mean that everything they say or teach will be perfectly true and correct.  It means that the church won’t be led into apostasy by its leaders.  

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

And at the time of the restoration in the early 1800’s, the curse of Cain and the curse of Ham doctrines were at the height of Protestant acceptance in North America.  And even though Joseph Smith had accepted and ordained black individuals to the priesthood, the popular Protestant doctrine of that era made its way into church doctrine, primarily through Brigham Young.  It’s an unfortunate thing.

Those ordinations were done before Joseph Smith was supposedly corrected by God.

The important word in your statement is “supposedly”.  

Caleb A. Shreeve, Sr. wasn’t the first person to make such a claim.  But unfortunately for him (and the others), there isn’t any historical support for those claims.  Elijah Abel’s priesthood ordination was never rescinded, and he continued to be accepted as a member of the Third Quorum of the Seventies as late as 1883 (according to church records).

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

The ordination of Black individuals in Protestant churches varied significantly across different 
denominations and regions.

But this is just side-stepping the fact that the curse of Cain and the curse of Ham doctrines were rooted in Protestant teaching.  That’s where they originated.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

 We have already discussed why the “gates of hades” are intended to keep people in the grave and why the gates of the grave would not prevail against the church (because of the resurrection) and why that statement has nothing to do with Jesus saying the church would never fall into apostasy.  And we already discussed why the apostasy prophecy by Paul was already beginning in his day (as Paul stated) and it has already been fulfilled.  It happened shortly after the apostles “departed”.

Yes, there would be some apostasy.  But the LDS Church teaches there was a total apostasy. The 
1997 Gospel Principles terms this as the destruction of the church being complete.

At least you recognize that there was some apostasy.  But the “great apostasy” is far more than just “some” apostasy, as it resulted in the loss of priesthood keys due to the death of the quorum of the apostles (thus the total elimination of the leadership organization that Jesus established), and the replacement of the other leaders that were appointed by the apostles, the loss of covenants, and it was a general apostasy that included a departure from or corruption of some key doctrines (like redefining the relationship between the Father and the Son).

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

The Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants are part of the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they are in complete harmony with the Holy Bible, so I didn’t need to point this out.

Show me in scripture where Heavenly Father is an exalted man or that Jesus Christ was the first 
born son of heavenly parents who became a God.

I said these scriptures are in harmony with the Holy Bible, not that they all contain the same revealed truths. 

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

You could teach anything you want by using the argument that the Bible does not contradict a 
teaching because it's neither supported nor refuted by it.

The question would be whether or not the teaching is based upon revealed truths, or not. 

And, some people do teach anything they want even when the Bible contradicts the teaching (like the modern teachings on monotheism, for example).  

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

This is not what Latter-day Saints teach at all.  We affirm that God is from “everlasting to everlasting” (Moroni 7:22, Doctrine and Covenants 20:17 and 61:1).

Yes. I know.  That is not what Joseph Smith affirmed.

"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".

"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, page 442).

https://ia804605.us.archive.org/29/items/articlesoffaith00talm/articlesoffaith00talm.pdf

You continue to misconstrue “what Joseph Smith affirmed” and reject how the Bible uses the phrase “everlasting to everlasting” (which does not mean “from all eternity”) as I demonstrated in our prior discussions.  Joseph Smith’s teachings are completely consistent with all of scripture.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

  I don’t think it’s difficult at all, God does identify key aspects of himself clearly in the Bible.  He is the “God of gods”, and there is “none like him” as no other God compares to him.

Latter-day Saints teach they can become like him. This precludes becoming exactly like him.  

Becoming “like him” is relative, since nobody will ever catch up to be equal to God the Father in all of his works and glory.  But God the Father offers his children everything that he has, including sitting with him in his throne.

The Bible teaches we will become “like” Jesus (1 John 3:2), and Jesus is like his Father (John 12:45). 

“Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.  Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.”  (1 John 3:1–3)

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

From the Exaltation chapter in Gospel Principles: "They will have everything that our Heavenly 
Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

Yes, just as the Bible teaches (John 17:20-23, Revelation 2:26, 3:21) and “He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son” (Revelation 21:7).  God will always be our God as this verse says.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Even in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had become like God, but they were not God (Genesis 3:22).

Of course they weren’t “God”, because the context explains that Adam and Eve had gained only one important attribute of God, the knowledge of good and evil.  As God said, “the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil”.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

He is our “Father”, the “Father of spirits”, And we are the same kind of being as God, just as the Bible teaches.

I am familiar with the LDS teaching that we are [present tense] gods right now, even in our 
sinful state.  Apparently we become gods [future tense] when we are exalted (Doctrine and 
Covenants 132:19-20).

The teaching that God is the Father of our spirits is biblical, as is the teaching that we are the very same kind of being as God.  Paul taught that in Acts 17:28-29.

Do you believe that God is the Father of spirits as taught in Hebrews 12:9? 

Do you believe that we are the same kind of being as God, as Paul taught in Acts 17:28-29?  

Or do you reject these teachings?

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

You can’t understand the Trinity, Trinitarians can’t understand the Trinity, so why would you expect Joseph Smith to understand it?  But there is more than one way that you are judging Joseph Smith unfairly.

The Trinity is either one God or three Gods.  Which is it for you?

You are setting up a false dichotomy.  There is a third choice, which is both. 

The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.  But they are “one” in unity and will, just as the Bible teaches (John 17:11, 20-23), but not “one Being” or “one essence” or “one substance” (the way the Nicene Creed teaches), because that teaching is completely absent from scripture.

This is why in the Bible the resurrected Jesus called God the Father “my God”.  And this is why the early Christians referred to Jesus as the “second God” or “another God”. 

And Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are perfect representatives of the one God who is above all.  Thus, to receive Jesus or the Holy Spirit is the same as receiving the Father.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

At one point, the Holy Ghost was not even regarded as being in the Godhead.  See 
https://www.lecturesonfaith.com/5/

"There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power 
over all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether 
visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or 
throughout the immensity of space—They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a 
personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who 
was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man".

This was later reversed to the Father being a personage of flesh and bones.

And of course Joseph Smith didn't write the Lectures on Faith.  Sydney Rigdon did.  See The Case for Sidney Rigdon as Author of the Lectures on Faith, and LDS Perspectives Podcast Episode 44: Mystery Solved: Who Wrote the Lectures on Faith? with Noel Reynolds (or audio here).  

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

Speculation isn’t the same as revealed doctrine.  And some of what you say above is Biblical and even taught in early Christianity.  

For example, how is Jesus the “first begotten” of the Father as it says in Hebrews 1:6, or that he is our “brother” as stated in Hebrews 2:17-18, or that he was “begotten of the Father before all worlds” as it says in the 381 AD version of the Nicene Creed, or “begotten before the worlds” as stated in the Athanasian Creed?

Jesus is also referred to as being the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18).

Yes, but the context tells us what it is talking about.  In Hebrews 1:6, it says:  "And again, when he [God the Father] bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." (Hebrews 1:6).  The context of this verse shows that Jesus was the firstbegotten of the Father before he was brought into the world.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Begotten in the case of Christ does not mean created.  Firstborn does not always mean first born 
either.

Latter-day Saints don’t teach that Jesus came into being when he was begotten by the Father, as you well know.  We teach that Jesus has always existed.  Consequently, Latter-day Saints would agree with the phrase in the Nicene creed that says Jesus was “begotten, not made”, and we would also agree with the phrase in the creed of the First Council of Constantinople that Jesus was “begotten of the Father before all worlds”.  And we believe, as the Bible teaches, that God the Father brought his “firstbegotten into the world”, as Hebrews 1:6 teaches.  

Do you believe these things?  

Was Jesus “begotten of the Father before all worlds” as the early Christians creeds teach, or not?  Or do you believe something else?

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

I can’t help it if some people don’t believe what the Bible says about Jesus.  But just because someone else doesn’t believe what the Bible says it doesn’t mean what we believe is a “different Jesus”.

Would you classify Jesus of the Jehovah's Witnesses (aka Michael the Archangel) as a different Jesus?

I believe they are trying to make sense of scripture according to their interpretation of it, and they use some scripture (incorrectly) to try to support their view.  They are completely wrong on that point, of course.  

But I don’t think when they do that it is any different than Trinitarians trying to read a completely unbiblical concept of a “homoousious” Father and Son back into scripture (as shown in my last post).  The Jehovah’s Witnesses version of Jesus relies on a misreading of a few verses of scripture (i.e. 1 Thes 4:16, some verses in the book of Daniel, and other lose associations corresponding to the role of Michael and Jesus), and the “homoousious” version of Jesus doesn’t just misread a few verses, rather a person must be told that some verses really mean that Jesus is “homoousious” with his Father, so the concept literally has no biblical support at all.  

Do you see any difference there?  Would you classify the teaching that Jesus is “homoousious” with his Father as “a different Jesus” than what was taught by Jesus and the apostles?  Or how is that a better choice than the Jehovah’s Witnesses, given that the concept is not found in scripture at all?

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

They foretold it and knew a restoration would be needed for the church just as a restoration would be needed for Israel.

The church Jesus established has only one high priest, Himself.

Funny.  

How does your claim above (which has no biblical support) have any relevance to the comment from me that you are responding to?  In your prior post, you made the comment against LDS teaching that “Christ was not able to prevent his church from being destroyed”, to which I responded:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

This sounds like a typical atheist argument against the existence of God.  ("If God exists, why can't he prevent all the suffering in the world", etc.?)

Christ wasn’t “able to prevent” the fall of Adam, and Christ wasn’t “able to prevent” wickedness at the time of Noah that made it necessary to destroy them all in a flood, and he wasn’t “able to prevent” ancient Israel from going into apostasy several times and becoming “lost” either (if you want to characterize it that way, I don’t).  I believe Jesus lets us make choices and we must face the consequences of those choices, and his plan includes a provision for our redemption from bad choices.  

Your statement falsely presupposes that it was Christ’s intent to prevent the church from being destroyed. But Jesus and the apostles knew full well that apostasy of the church would occur after the apostles were removed.  They foretold it and knew a restoration would be needed for the church just as a restoration would be needed for Israel.

And to this you respond by saying, “The church Jesus established has only one high priest, Himself”??

What does this have to do with anything I said?  

Regarding your comment, I realize the “one high priest” idea is your belief (you can believe whatever you want), and I understand that this is a very popular teaching among many Christian groups today, but there is no biblical basis for this belief at all.  We discussed this previously in this very thread.  See my post on 04/19/2024, where I demonstrated that there is no Old Testament precedent for the idea that Christ “is the one and only High Priest” because there are several Old Testament examples of times when there were multiple high priests.   The same goes for the New Testament.

See also my post on 07/10/2023 followed by Kevin Christensen’s post on 07/12/2023 on this topic.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Heavenly Father is not an exalted man. And Jesus is not the first born spirit child of heavenly 
parent who became a God.

That’s what you believe, of course.  

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

That is why I consider the LDS as teaching a different Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.

I also consider Jehovah's Witnesses teaching a different Jesus.

I realize you believe this.  But the question is not about what you believe, but what it meant when Paul warned against preaching of a different Jesus than what Jesus or the apostles taught.

In my last post I demonstrated clearly that the Trinitarian idea that Jesus and his Father are “one being” (“homoousious”) is not a biblical teaching.  Jesus and the apostles never taught this doctrine.  I also showed how modern Christians try to impose this doctrine upon the biblical texts.  They read the doctrine into scripture instead of deriving it from scripture.  So, if you believe in this unbiblical teaching about God the Father and Jesus, then I totally understand why you “consider the LDS as teaching a different Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ”.  We don’t teach that unbiblical doctrine, but our teachings correlate with what Jesus and the apostles taught about how Jesus and his Father are “one”.

The other big difference I see is that we believe in a God who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and continues to reveal things about himself to modern day apostles and prophets.  And while all of the things God reveals today are in total harmony with the word of God as given in the Bible and other scriptures, some of the details may not be included in every book of scripture.  But that’s why God calls prophets and apostles.  They are here to teach these things. 

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

I provided some LDS teachings which show Heavenly Father and Jesus became (were formed into) 
Gods.

God the Father increasing in the number of his creations does not equate to him being “formed” into something else.  The same goes for any one of us progressing to inherit the same things that God has.  

It’s like a child that is sent off to school, and as the child progresses the parents provide a college education to the child, and after years of study he or she becomes a medical doctor.  The child isn’t “formed” into a full blown medical doctor, it’s something the child becomes through the progression of his or her life.  

Thus, it’s a huge stretch to say that humans (who are the same kind of being as God to begin with – Acts 17:28-29) are “formed into” becoming gods as a way to make a prooftext out of Isaiah 43:10 (while wresting the verse out of context on top of that) to try to counter the early Christian and Latter-day Saint doctrines teaching that humans can become gods.  

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

I think even you believe you are an eternal being but that will not make you an Eternal 
God, if according to LDS teachings, you become God and then start telling people you are the 
Eternal God - because you have not eternally existed as God.  

So I guess when Christians say they have “eternal life” and start telling people that they have “eternal life” then we really shouldn’t believe them, because their life hasn’t existed eternally and they gained “eternal life” at some point?  Is that the logic you are trying to use here?

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

You will supposedly be exalted (a 
God being formed).

Acts 2:36 says that God “made” Jesus “both Lord and Christ”, and in Matthew 28:18, Jesus said that “all power… in heaven and in earth” was “given” to him.  And Philippians 2:8-9 says that Jesus was “highly exalted” by his Father and given a name “above every other name”.  So, was Jesus “a God being formed” too?

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

The LDS version of Heavenly Father is an exalted man. Prior to his exaltation, he is not God.  
He is a God who is formed after following his path of progression until he achieved exaltation.

The same thing was taught in the 1997 Gospel Principles, but was later edited out.

All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like him—a 
god. He has said, "Behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and 
eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39).

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf

So, gods (a god like Heavenly Father) are formed.

You’ve been corrected on this misrepresentation of the Gospel Principles manual so many times I’ve lost count, so at this point I know that you are misrepresenting it on purpose and it’s dishonest of you to do that.  See my post on 08/09/2020 and 10/29/2020 (where you were corrected on the matter).

I’m adding this to the list of the other times you've brought this up as theplains:  08/08/2012, 10/15/2012, 02/26/2015, 07/27/2016, 02/23/2017, 03/01/2017, 09/10/2019, 07/24/2020, 08/08/2020, 10/24/2020, and 07/10/2023.  Or posting as TheTanakas:  07/03/2021 or 11/25/2022.  Or posting as telnetd:  04/06/2023 or 11/16/2023.  Or posting as marineland (aka orion88:   10/07/2011, 11/07/2011, 01/01/2012, 02/27/2012.  

Thanks.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

There is a reference to pagan gods which are regarded as deities.  The Israelites regarded them 
as their true gods so they worshipped them.

As for Psalm 86, I believe the gods there are referring to corrupt human judges.

Yes, you already said that, and I explained how that doesn’t make any sense at all.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Being God over them does not make God the best corrupt human judge there is.  In similar fashion, 
God being the Father of many sinful beings does not make Him the best sinful human.

But the passage doesn’t say that God is merely the God of those other “gods”, rather it compares God to the other “gods” and says those gods are “among” him.  It says, “Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.”   

You apparently believe God is being compared to corrupt human judges.  There is no praise or honor in doing that, and that interpretation is disrespectful to God and completely illogical.

A week ago on the day before you posted your response, I was thinking about your interpretation of this verse and I was trying to see if your point of view has any merit by finding a way of interpreting the “gods” of Psalm 86:8 as something other than actual gods. 

So I (honestly) tried out this logic on my wife.  I first said to her:

“Among the squirrels there is none like unto you, my wife, neither are there any works among their works like unto your works”.

She looked at me with a scowl on her face, and said, “What are you doing?  That was very insulting comparing me to a squirrel”.

I explained what I was trying to do, and she shrugged it off.

Later in the day I tried it again in different ways:

I said to her, “Among the chickens there is none like unto you, my wife, neither are there any works among their works like unto your works”.   I thought this approach might help, since she likes chickens.

She replied, “You are trying that again?  That was just as bad.  You are being obnoxious.”

The third time I tried cats, but she thought that was just as insulting and again said I was obnoxious.  

Then finally I said, “Among the women of this planet there is none like unto you, my wife, neither are there any works among them like unto your works”.   

And to that she said, “Now that is flattering and that would normally make me feel respected and appreciated, but since you’ve been so obnoxious with the previous versions, I don’t think I believe you”.   (Ha ha).

Exodus 15:11 is similar to Psalm 86:8, it says: “Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?”   Are these “gods” also corrupt human judges?

The bottom line here is that Psalm 86:8 and Exodus 15:11 cannot make any reasonable sense unless the comparison is made to actual “gods” that are real and are the same classification of beings that God is, and are capable of works that are similar to his, although their works are certainly not as great or have the same magnitude of his.  To compare God to any created or non-existent thing (idols?) or corrupt human judges, or any other class of being is insulting and disrespectful.  It’s like comparing a human to a squirrel or a chicken or a cat.  And if you don’t believe me, try this experiment on someone you know and let me know how it goes for you.

Can you please explain how your interpretation of Psalm 86:8 or Exodus 15:11 makes any logical sense and shows praise and worship to God by comparing him to corrupt human judges?  “Among the corrupt human judges there is none like unto thee, O Lord, neither are there any works among the corrupt human judges like unto thy works”.  How is that being respectful to God?

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

I think the LDS believe the gods in Psalm 86 is a reference to some pre-mortal council and the 
gods are the spirit children of Heavenly Father who shouted for joy when they heard the plan of 
salvation. Or maybe these gods are other Deities (Heavenly Fathers) from other realms that were 
also invited to some grand council in Heaven.

"Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy 
works." (Psalm 86:8)

This can be interpreted as a recognition of God's supreme power over any other beings considered 
as gods, but it doesn't specifically depict a heavenly council of deities.

You really need to read the Got Questions website article titled:  What is the divine council?

The article starts out:  

“Psalm 89:5–7 says, ‘The heavens praise your wonders, LORD, your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings? In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him.’  These verses present a divine council: heavenly beings referred to as ‘the council of the holy ones.’ Psalm 82:1 also indicates that ‘God has taken his place in the divine council’ (Psalm 82:1, ESV). The ‘divine council’ is also called the ‘great assembly’ (NIV), ‘heaven’s court’ (NLT), and ‘His own congregation’ (NASB).”

But the most important feature of this article is not so much what they say in the article itself, but in one of the links they provide in the “FOR FUTHER STUDY” section at the bottom.  The Got Questions website actually recommends the same book that I recommended to you (in a prior discussion) for understanding this topic:  The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible by Michael Heiser.  

I quoted from The Unseen Realm in my post to you on 09/19/2023, regarding the meaning of the denial statements (or one God rhetoric) used in the Old Testament.  

It is encouraging that the website would recommend this book for this topic, although the website doesn’t apply the scholarship provided by this book equally to other articles created on the site.

In the article titled, “What does the Bible mean by ‘you are gods’ / ‘ye are gods’ in Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34?, the Got Questions website at least hints at some of the views presented in The Unseen Realm, by providing the following as one of two possible interpretations of that chapter (bold emphasis is mine):

“1) The ‘gods’ are supernatural beings who rule under God. Psalm 82:1 says, ‘God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the gods.’ In the Hebrew, the phrase translated ‘great assembly’ speaks of a divine congregation or a divine council. Some interpret this passage as God warning that those in the divine council who continue making unjust decisions will die ‘like mere mortals’ and ‘fall like all other rulers’ (Psalm 82:2, 6–8). God created hell for Satan and his angels (Matthew 25:41), and we know He will bring justice to them at the right time. They will fall like mere mortals.”

The description above is close, but not exactly how Heiser describes these beings in his book (it is not talking about Satan and his angels).  He refers to them as “divine beings”, and they are “elohim” with him in a heavenly council.  

Heiser explains, “the real problem with the human view, though, is that it cannot be reconciled with other references in the Hebrew Old Testament that refer to a divine council of elohim.”   He then quotes Psalm 89:5-7 as one example of this, which he says “explicitly contradicts the notion of a divine council in which the elohim are humans”:

5 And so the heavens will praise your wonderful deed, O Yahweh, even your faithfulness, in the assembly of the holy ones.
6 For who in the sky is equal to Yahweh?  Who is like Yahweh among the sons of God,
7 a God feared greatly in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all surrounding him?

Heiser explains, “God’s divine council is an assembly in the heavens, not on earth. The language is unmistakable. This is precisely what we’d expect if we understand the elohim to be divine beings. It is utter nonsense if we think of them as humans. There is no reference in Scripture to a council of human beings serving Yahweh in the skies (Jews or otherwise).” (The Unseen Realm, p. 29)

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

Also, "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord" is not referring to true Gods because 
there are many true Gods like Heavenly Father in LDS theology.

If context = Earth, there is none like the Father, except the Son and the Holy Spirit.

If context = everything ever created by any God in existence, then there are many like Heavenly
Father of Earth.

There are other gods, yes, but your reasoning above is not correct.  God the Father is the “God of all other gods” as it says in Doctrine and Covenants 121:32. He is the one God “above all” (Ephesians 4:6), the “God of gods” (Deuteronomy 10:17).

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

The context of 1 Corinthians 8 is about the pagan city of Corinth.  It was a land of many false 
gods, whom the Corinthians were worshipping as true gods.  Some of these gods were Jupiter, Venus,  
Neptune, and Mars.

Paul comes there and preaches to them the true God of Earth in the backstop of their collection 
of false gods, whom they regarded as divine.  He doesn't come in and reveal that they are 
worshipping true Gods of other worlds and that they must only worship the God of Earth.

Yes. Paul was fully aware that other "gods" exist in reality, but they are pagan deities.

As in mentioned in Psalm, 
    • They have eyes but cannot see.
    • They have ears but cannot hear.
    • They have feet but cannot walk.

Right, which is why Paul denies that those false gods are gods at all by saying that idols are “nothing” and “they be no gods”.  This is exactly why verse 5 can’t possibly be talking about those idols, because it would be a total contradiction for him to turn around and affirm that they really are gods after denying that they are gods.  

“Idols are not gods” + “there be gods many and lords many” = a contradiction if he meant idols the entire time.

Paul also mentions “lords many” along with the “gods many”.   Paul is referencing Deuteronomy 10:17 here:  “For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward”.  These are real “gods” and real “lords”, because God is not the God of nothing, he is not the God of idols or make-believe entities.  He is the God of “gods” that really exist.
 

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

But all those verses [Amulek speaking with Zeezrom] do affirm the unity of God

By that logic, the unity of God = one God = all Christians being united with God = all Christians 
are one God.

All Christians who become gods would qualify to be one with God the Father, yes.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

Ok, but then you obviously don’t believe Jesus when he says, “that they may be one even as we are one”.

"They" [Christians] being one like Heavenly Father and Jesus being one does not make them (the 
"they", the Christians) Gods.

No (not in and of itself), but it does make them qualified for those blessings.  

When believers align their will with the Father and the Son, and Jesus is “in” them in the same way the Father is “in” Jesus, and the believer is “in” Jesus, they are made perfect in one and are in a position to be divine representatives of the name of Christ and his God, the Father. 

This is also why Jesus put his trust in those he calls to represent him, and says of them: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.” (John 13:20).  This shows that there is no difference between receiving Jesus or those who Jesus sends, or receiving the Father, because they are “one” with Jesus and the Father.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

You are projecting a lot of speculative ideas in the paragraph above, and those things go far beyond what the scriptures teach and what Joseph Smith taught.

Joseph Smith and others in the LDS Church went far beyond what the scriptures teach.

God goes far beyond what the scriptures teach.  There are so many more things to know about God than what can be contained in any of the scriptures.  That’s why God always works through prophets and apostles (and God doesn’t change).  

The Church of Jesus Christ (originally) didn’t derive its teachings directly from scripture, the teachings came through Jesus Christ.  And, after his resurrection, the teachings of the church were based on what Jesus taught and divine revelation from him to his appointed apostles and prophets.  The Church of Jesus Christ today works in exactly the same way (God doesn’t change).  

But because all the teachings come from God, they will always be in harmony with the word of God as revealed previously.  That doesn’t mean everything God reveals to us in the future will be found in prior scripture, but it will be in harmony with prior scripture since God is the source of all truth.  There may be some changes in implementation and practice (such as the transition from the gospel given to Abraham to the law of Moses, and then from the law of Moses to the gospel given under the new covenant by Jesus Christ), but the principles and truths will remain the same.

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

On 10/20/2024 at 5:57 PM, InCognitus said:

I didn’t sense any sarcasm in the blessing Jacob gave to Joseph stating that his seed would become a multitude of Gentiles.  Why do you?  (That’s an honest question).

My sarcasm was not about that. I was indicating in reverse mode that I don't believe literal 
Israelites being sown among literal Gentiles makes them literal Gentiles any more than literal 
Gentiles being sown among literal Israelites makes them literal Israelites. 

In my post on 07/26/2024, I explained the meaning of “Gentile” as it is used in the Bible and how the Hebrew word ggôyim (גֹּויִם) is translated as both “nations” and “Gentiles” throughout the Bible.  And the quote I provided from  Genesis 48:19 using the Jubilee Bible 2000 translation says Ephraim “shall become a multitude of Gentiles”. 

So based on that usage in scripture, what exactly is a “literal Gentile”?  When a literal Israelite is literally in a foreign nation, is he or she a literal Gentile or not?  Or what exactly does that mean?

I go with this definition of a Gentile as given in this January 1991 Ensign article, “Of the House of Israel”:

Quote

Who Is a “Gentile”?

The basic meaning of the word Gentile is “foreign,” “other,” or “non.” Thus, to a Hebrew, a Gentile is a non-Hebrew; to an Israelite, a Gentile is a non-Israelite; and to a Jew, a Gentile is a non-Jew. In this sense, some Latter-day Saints have referred to those who are not members of the Church as Gentiles, even though the nonmembers might be Jews!

The word Gentile might also be used in several different ways to refer to family, religious, political, or even geographical relationships. For example, a person might be considered an Israelite in a family or blood sense, but might be called a Gentile in a political or geographical sense because he lives in a land or nation that is primarily Gentile, or non-Israelitish.

It is the latter portion of this definition that explains how a literal Israelite (by blood) can be a literal Gentile (in the political or geographical sense).  And this usage of the word is also evident in the biblical texts.  So I think your sarcasm is based on a one-sided definition of the word “Gentile”.

Edited November 15, 2024 by InCognitus

[Calm]

This may be the longest post this board has had.  

[CV75]

7 hours ago, InCognitus said:

You are just repeating yourself again.  I already addressed the “spiritual sacrifices” question previously in our prior discussions on this topic.  See the posts dated 07/16/2024 and 05/18/2024.

Yes, the fact that they will be brought out of “all nations” is the gathering part prior to them getting to go to Jerusalem, just as we discussed previously.  But even prior to that the Lord says, “I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.  And I will set a sign [ensign] among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.”  (Isaiah 66:18-19)

The verses don’t say anything about them not being in those places as you seem to think.  On the contrary, it says that they will be brought out of “all nations”, which obviously includes those places.

You already asked the “when” question about the timing of the fulfillment, and I already gave my answer to that earlier in the thread.

Jesus taught, “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Matthew 3:9)   I believe God can do it however he says he will do it.

I also think CV75 gave a sufficient answer to this question as well.

From the very beginning they were “continuing daily with one accord in the temple” (Acts 2:46).  They went there for prayer (Acts 3:1, 22:17) and reverenced the temple and its purposes (Acts 25:8), and Paul and other men even went to the temple for purification and to offer sacrifices (Acts 21:26, and 24:18).  

We no longer need the high priests to act as mediators for the atonement rituals or otherwise.  But the role of priests and high priests were not limited to those duties (they were also called to be judges in Israel, for example), and obviously priests continued in the church after Christ because otherwise the New Testament wouldn’t say that Jesus has “made us kings and priests unto God” (Revelation 1:6, 5:10).

But we have already discussed all that.  

Not just by Paul, but also the men who were with him (Acts 21:26). 

Where does the New Testament say that?  Or are you just stating what you believe again?

“Most likely”, you say.  But however you try to frame it, it is still evidence of God’s recognition of the importance of temples after the time of Christ and in New Testament Christianity.  In other words, temples are still important to God.

And after all of this, you still didn’t answer the question.  I’ll restate it here:

It is obvious in the New Testament that God’s temples are intended to continue, because it is not until the earth is renewed and becomes celestialized and the holy city new Jerusalem comes out of heaven that it finally becomes noteworthy that there will be “no temple therein for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it” (Revelation 21:22).  Why would the biblical text draw attention to the absence of a temple in that city if temples were done away at Christ’s first coming as you suppose?

Yes, now you are getting it.  The Israelites will have the entire earth as their land of inheritance.  That’s what the Bible says.  The “meek” includes Israelites and it also includes the Gentiles who become “Israel” (the people of God) in the covenant with Christ.  The people of God inherit the earth, and all others are “cut off” from that inheritance.  And the land promised to Abraham will also be theirs and they will be able to inhabit those lands in fulfillment of that covenant.

Of course not, the Bible was written from the viewpoint of the Jews centered around Judaea in the land of Israel, and it covers a portion of their history and the words of their prophets.  Why would you think that anything specifically about America would be considered relevant to them?  

After the northern tribes were scattered, we don’t find much written about them at all except for the prophesies saying they will be gathered again.  The northern tribes were called “lost” for a reason.  

Look at this Old Testament chronology.  In the chronology chart, the “kings of Judah are printed in heavy type [bold], and the kings of Israel in capitals”.  Notice that the kings of Israel are completely absent after 721 BC, because the northern tribes are gone, and they are no longer the focus of the text of the Bible from the point of view of the Jews centered around Judaea.

Since the Bible no longer mentions the kings or prophets of the northern kingdoms or anything related to them after 721 BC, did those people just cease to exist?   Obviously, they still existed somewhere, but they were no longer relevant to the focus of those in Judaea, so the Bible has very little to say about them from that point forward.  If the Bible handles previously know people groups that way, then why would you expect it to discuss America at all, since it is totally out of the focus of anyone at Judaea?  

But the lands promised to Abraham are reaffirmed frequently in the Bible because those lands are tied to the original covenant that God made with Abraham.  In addition, the Bible also makes it clear that Israel will “inherit the earth”, showing that God has much more to offer the seed of Abraham (who are numbered as the “sands of the sea” or as the “stars of heaven”) than the small land area included in the original covenant. 

The lands promised to them in Canaan are choice for reasons specific to that region of the world.  But the lands promised to them in the Americas are “choice above all other lands” for different reasons.

If you are asking how the people of the book of Ether fit into the parable of the vineyard in Jacob 5, they don’t.  The people of the book of Ether (the Jaredites) pre-date Abraham by almost ten generations, and the parable of the vineyard in Jacob 5 begins when Israel is in a state of decay.  And the primary group of people known as Jaredites were wiped out roughly 600 B.C.  

Actually, the “hand” in the verse you quoted belongs to the Lord, not Ezekiel (Ezekiel is speaking the words of the Lord in the first person).  And it can’t be Ezekiel for the fulfillment anyway, since the realization of the events described in the prophecy happen far into the future from the time of Ezekiel when the Lord shall take the children of Israel from among the heathen and gather them on every side, and then bring them into their own land.  But we’ve already discussed all of this. 

This is what I’ve been saying all along (although clearly the “general sense” includes both saved Israelites and Gentiles).  I’m glad you finally agree.  

But God doesn’t see them as “Jews and Gentiles”.  In Romans 9-11, Paul explains that the Gentiles (the wild branches) are grafted in to the “olive tree” which is Israel. The Gentiles become part of that “tree”, and they belong to Israel.

I don’t see “something different” in Doctrine and Covenants 88:17-20, because those verses say that the poor and the meek will inherit the celestialized earth.  You aren’t making any sense in what you say above.

This is also exactly what I have been saying all along.  The land promised to Abraham is given back to them as a final symbol of full fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.  But this in no way excludes them from inheriting other lands that are also promised to them throughout the world, because the full scope of the promises given to Abraham include that his seed would be numbered as the sands of the sea.

You are assuming that Nephi really understood the size of the continent, which he did not.  But Nephi was aware of other people groups on the continent and Nephi’s view of “this land” was relative to his own settlement.  He knew that the Lord would protect them in their own settlement (“this land”) from other nations (people groups) that were in other places on the same continent as long as his family was righteous. 

There are at least two big problems with what you say above.  

First, Abraham was promised that he would be multiplied “exceedingly”, and he would be the “father of many nations” (Genesis 17:2, 4-6).  The same is said of Jacob (Genesis 35:11-12) and Ephraim (Genesis 48:19).  Abraham is also promised, “I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered” (Genesis 13:16) and Jacob is told the same thing (Genesis 28:14).  Abraham is also told his “seed” shall be “as the stars of heaven” (Genesis 15:5 and 22:17), which some biblical scholars also see as an allusion to them becoming exalted as gods (the gods were considered to be as the stars of heaven, and Jesus is the “bright and morning star”), but for the sake of this discussion let’s limit this to describing the number of their seed.  Isaac is promised the same thing (Genesis 26:4).  And Abraham was promised by God, “unto thy seed will I give this land” (referring to Canaan – Genesis 12:7).

So all the seed of Abraham and Jacob, which are “as the dust of the earth” or “as the stars of heaven” will inherit the land of Canaan according to scripture.

Second, the celestializing of the earth occurs after the final resurrection (Revelation 21), and the people that will inherit the earth are all those who inherit the celestial kingdom that lived and died from the beginning of creation. 

So let’s do some math using biblical definitions to see how many people this might entail.

In the verse you quoted from Jesus (Matthew 7:14), he said speaking of receiving eternal life that there are “few there be that find it”.  We have at least one biblical definition of how many is in a “few”.  In 1 Peter 3:20, speaking of Noah and his family and how they were saved from the flood, it says of the ark: “wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water”.  Thus, according to the Bible, eight is a few. 

So let’s go with this Bible definition and assume that eight out of one hundred people would be considered as the “few” that would be saved, which is 8%. That’s actually a very conservative percentage given that every child that has died before the age of accountability will be heirs of the celestial kingdom, and I’m pretty sure Jesus didn’t have little children in mind when speaking about those who need to “find” the gate and narrow way in Matthew 7:14.  And based on historical samples, on average, 27% of newborns died in their first year of life (before modern times).  But let’s stick with 8% as a very low estimate of the percentage of the population throughout the history of the earth that will inherit the celestial kingdom.  

Now for the calculation:  Rough estimates of the total number of people who have ever lived on the earth range from 100 billion to 117 billion (and I’d be surprised if those estimates include the infants who died in their first year of life, but we’ll still go with this).  Let’s take the lower estimate of 100 billion for this example to keep it simple. 

Eight percent of 100 billion is 8 billion people.  The current population of the earth is roughly 8 billion.  And that pretty much covers it (pun intended).

So the bottom line is that your arguments above don’t add up.

That’s because the apostles at the time of Christ were first sent to the house of Israel, it was their purpose and mission.  

The Great Commission is for all people retroactively, but not initially. 

In your post on 10/02/2024, you said (bold emphasis mine):

Remember, Jesus taught the apostles for “forty days” after his resurrection (Acts 1:1-3).  Do you honestly believe that if Jesus meant for them to go to the Gentiles when he gave the great commission, that he didn’t explain that clearly enough for them to understand it during that “forty days” of teaching them?  I’m just trying to figure out how your interpretation of the great commission makes any sense given that Jesus taught them “forty days” and none of them figured that out until it had to be revealed to Peter later (in Acts 10) to start going to the Gentiles.  

Given the forty-day ministry of Jesus, why didn’t any of the apostles know that they should be going to the Gentiles until God revealed it to Peter in Acts 10?  

Can you explain how your interpretation makes any sense?

I read the Got Questions article that you are copying from above (What is the one shepherd and one flock that Jesus talks about in John 10:16?), and you present it as showing your own view as if it is the only one that’s possible.  But you left out the part where they say, “Who are these ‘other sheep that are not of this sheep pen’? Most scholars understand that the sheep pen introduced at the beginning of the chapter represents first-century Jewish believers.”  The point here is that some scholars do not support that view, and it comes down to interpretation.

But the view that Jesus is including the Gentiles among those who would “hear his voice” contradicts what Jesus said about him only going to the “house of Israel” as explained in my prior post, and that is further demonstrated by the fact that Jesus sent his apostles to go to the Gentiles (he didn’t personally go to them).  

“Also”, that’s right, both Protestants and Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t understand who the other sheep are.

You left out the part where it says they are to “Proclaim the kingdom (Luke 10:9)”. They were called to preach the gospel.

In the latter-days, the Lord has revealed that the Seventy are “called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world”, and they are “to act in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Twelve or the traveling high council, in building up the church and regulating all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles and then to the Jews” (Doctrine and Covenants 107:25 and 34).  

Whatever you want to personally believe about the Seventy is up to you.  

And you also left out describing the Seventy that were called by God prior to Israel breaking their covenant.  The Got Questions website describes them as follows:

“In Exodus 24:1–2, we read of Israel’s seventy elders: ‘Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Come up to the Lord, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. You are to worship at a distance, but Moses alone is to approach the Lord; the others must not come near. And the people may not come up with him.’  The seventy elders are mentioned as a unit and were most likely a distinct group selected from among the many other elders in Israel. Although we don’t know for certain, these seventy were probably some of the men Moses chose after taking the advice from his father-in-law, Jethro (Exodus 18:13–26). In that case, they were ‘capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain’ (Exodus 18:25), and they ‘served as judges for the people at all times’ (verse 26).” (Got Questions:  Who were the seventy elders of Israel?)

As noted above, the Seventy that were called by God early on served as administrative assistants to Moses and to administer the affairs of the people of Israel.  

And in Christ’s restored church there is the additional need to administer his church at a worldwide level, and one of the reasons he called the Seventy today is for that purpose.  We can compare duties of the Seventy today to those in the Old and New Testaments, but the circumstances of today are much different than in ancient times.  And Jesus can call those he needs to administer in his worldwide church today.

So it sounds like the restored Church has it exactly right.

Do you believe that the apostles and prophets in Bible times were infallible?  Do you believe they never taught or believed anything that turned out to be false?  

And what about the importance of what is true or false in other situations?  Do you think context matters to help understanding what is “true or false”?  

Do you think what you said above also applies to activities on a message board?  What if a person creates multiple usernames and sets up a false identity and claims to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when they really are not, just to try to cause confusion on doctrinal matters and to use the username as a tool for misleading others and manipulating the conversation in a message thread?  Or if a person repeatedly posts quotes from a church’s publications in a misleading way (out of context), or edits them to eliminate key information that changes the meaning of the quote, or they make claims about a quote that they know (from prior correction) to be false about that church and its teachings?  Does that matter if what they post is true or false, or not?

I don’t think they should get rid of that teaching in that manual, because it belongs there.  That the leaders will not lead us astray does not mean that everything they say or teach will be perfectly true and correct.  It means that the church won’t be led into apostasy by its leaders.  

The important word in your statement is “supposedly”.  

Caleb A. Shreeve, Sr. wasn’t the first person to make such a claim.  But unfortunately for him (and the others), there isn’t any historical support for those claims.  Elijah Abel’s priesthood ordination was never rescinded, and he continued to be accepted as a member of the Third Quorum of the Seventies as late as 1883 (according to church records).

But this is just side-stepping the fact that the curse of Cain and the curse of Ham doctrines were rooted in Protestant teaching.  That’s where they originated.

At least you recognize that there was some apostasy.  But the “great apostasy” is far more than just “some” apostasy, as it resulted in the loss of priesthood keys due to the death of the quorum of the apostles (thus the total elimination of the leadership organization that Jesus established), and the replacement of the other leaders that were appointed by the apostles, the loss of covenants, and it was a general apostasy that included a departure from or corruption of some key doctrines (like redefining the relationship between the Father and the Son).

I said these scriptures are in harmony with the Holy Bible, not that they all contain the same revealed truths. 

The question would be whether or not the teaching is based upon revealed truths, or not. 

And, some people do teach anything they want even when the Bible contradicts the teaching (like the modern teachings on monotheism, for example).  

You continue to misconstrue “what Joseph Smith affirmed” and reject how the Bible uses the phrase “everlasting to everlasting” (which does not mean “from all eternity”) as I demonstrated in our prior discussions.  Joseph Smith’s teachings are completely consistent with all of scripture.

Becoming “like him” is relative, since nobody will ever catch up to be equal to God the Father in all of his works and glory.  But God the Father offers his children everything that he has, including sitting with him in his throne.

The Bible teaches we will become “like” Jesus (1 John 3:2), and Jesus is like his Father (John 12:45). 

“Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.  Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.”  (1 John 3:1–3)

Yes, just as the Bible teaches (John 17:20-23, Revelation 2:26, 3:21) and “He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son” (Revelation 21:7).  God will always be our God as this verse says.

Of course they weren’t “God”, because the context explains that Adam and Eve had gained only one important attribute of God, the knowledge of good and evil.  As God said, “the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil”.

The teaching that God is the Father of our spirits is biblical, as is the teaching that we are the very same kind of being as God.  Paul taught that in Acts 17:28-29.

Do you believe that God is the Father of spirits as taught in Hebrews 12:9? 

Do you believe that we are the same kind of being as God, as Paul taught in Acts 17:28-29?  

Or do you reject these teachings?

You are setting up a false dichotomy.  There is a third choice, which is both. 

The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.  But they are “one” in unity and will, just as the Bible teaches (John 17:11, 20-23), but not “one Being” or “one essence” or “one substance” (the way the Nicene Creed teaches), because that teaching is completely absent from scripture.

This is why in the Bible the resurrected Jesus called God the Father “my God”.  And this is why the early Christians referred to Jesus as the “second God” or “another God”. 

And Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are perfect representatives of the one God who is above all.  Thus, to receive Jesus or the Holy Spirit is the same as receiving the Father.

And of course Joseph Smith didn't write the Lectures on Faith.  Sydney Rigdon did.  See The Case for Sidney Rigdon as Author of the Lectures on Faith, and LDS Perspectives Podcast Episode 44: Mystery Solved: Who Wrote the Lectures on Faith? with Noel Reynolds (or audio here).  

Yes, but the context tells us what it is talking about.  In Hebrews 1:6, it says:  "And again, when he [God the Father] bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him."
(Hebrews 1:6).  The context of this verse shows that Jesus was the firstbegotten of the Father before he was brought into the world.

Latter-day Saints don’t teach that Jesus came into being when he was begotten by the Father, as you well know.  We teach that Jesus has always existed.  Consequently, Latter-day Saints would agree with the phrase in the Nicene creed that says Jesus was “begotten, not made”, and we would also agree with the phrase in the creed of the First Council of Constantinople that Jesus was “begotten of the Father before all worlds”.  And we believe, as the Bible teaches, that God the Father brought his “firstbegotten into the world”, as Hebrews 1:6 teaches.  

Do you believe these things?  

Was Jesus “begotten of the Father before all worlds” as the early Christians creeds teach, or not?  Or do you believe something else?

I believe they are trying to make sense of scripture according to their interpretation of it, and they use some scripture (incorrectly) to try to support their view.  They are completely wrong on that point, of course.  

But I don’t think when they do that it is any different than Trinitarians trying to read a completely unbiblical concept of a “homoousious” Father and Son back into scripture (as shown in my last post).  The Jehovah’s Witnesses version of Jesus relies on a misreading of a few verses of scripture (i.e. 1 Thes 4:16, some verses in the book of Daniel, and other lose associations corresponding to the role of Michael and Jesus), and the “homoousious” version of Jesus doesn’t just misread a few verses, rather a person must be told that some verses really mean that Jesus is “homoousious” with his Father, so the concept literally has no biblical support at all.  

Do you see any difference there?  Would you classify the teaching that Jesus is “homoousious” with his Father as “a different Jesus” than what was taught by Jesus and the apostles?  Or how is that a better choice than the Jehovah’s Witnesses, given that the concept is not found in scripture at all?

Funny.  

How does your claim above (which has no biblical support) have any relevance to the comment from me that you are responding to?  In your prior post, you made the comment against LDS teaching that “Christ was not able to prevent his church from being destroyed”, to which I responded:

And to this you respond by saying, “The church Jesus established has only one high priest, Himself”??

What does this have to do with anything I said?  

Regarding your comment, I realize the “one high priest” idea is your belief (you can believe whatever you want), and I understand that this is a very popular teaching among many Christian groups today, but there is no biblical basis for this belief at all.  We discussed this previously in this very thread.  See my post on 04/19/2024, where I demonstrated that there is no Old Testament precedent for the idea that Christ “is the one and only High Priest” because there are several Old Testament examples of times when there were multiple high priests.   The same goes for the New Testament.

See also my post on 07/10/2023 followed by Kevin Christensen’s post on 07/12/2023 on this topic.

That’s what you believe, of course.  

I realize you believe this.  But the question is not about what you believe, but what it meant when Paul warned against preaching of a different Jesus than what Jesus or the apostles taught.

In my last post I demonstrated clearly that the Trinitarian idea that Jesus and his Father are “one being” (“homoousious”) is not a biblical teaching.  Jesus and the apostles never taught this doctrine.  I also showed how modern Christians try to impose this doctrine upon the biblical texts.  They read the doctrine into scripture instead of deriving it from scripture.  So, if you believe in this unbiblical teaching about God the Father and Jesus, then I totally understand why you “consider the LDS as teaching a different Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ”.  We don’t teach that unbiblical doctrine, but our teachings correlate with what Jesus and the apostles taught about how Jesus and his Father are “one”.

The other big difference I see is that we believe in a God who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and continues to reveal things about himself to modern day apostles and prophets.  And while all of the things God reveals today are in total harmony with the word of God as given in the Bible and other scriptures, some of the details may not be included in every book of scripture.  But that’s why God calls prophets and apostles.  They are here to teach these things. 

God the Father increasing in the number of his creations does not equate to him being “formed” into something else.  The same goes for any one of us progressing to inherit the same things that God has.  

It’s like a child that is sent off to school, and as the child progresses the parents provide a college education to the child, and after years of study he or she becomes a medical doctor.  The child isn’t “formed” into a full blown medical doctor, it’s something the child becomes through the progression of his or her life.  

Thus, it’s a huge stretch to say that humans (who are the same kind of being as God to begin with – Acts 17:28-29) are “formed into” becoming gods as a way to make a prooftext out of Isaiah 43:10 (while wresting the verse out of context on top of that) to try to counter the early Christian and Latter-day Saint doctrines teaching that humans can become gods.  

So I guess when Christians say they have “eternal life” and start telling people that they have “eternal life” then we really shouldn’t believe them, because their life hasn’t existed eternally and they gained “eternal life” at some point?  Is that the logic you are trying to use here?

Acts 2:36 says that God “made” Jesus “both Lord and Christ”, and in Matthew 28:18, Jesus said that “all power… in heaven and in earth” was “given” to him.  And Philippians 2:8-9 says that Jesus was “highly exalted” by his Father and given a name “above every other name”.  So, was Jesus “a God being formed” too?

You’ve been corrected on this misrepresentation of the Gospel Principles manual so many times I’ve lost count, so at this point I know that you are misrepresenting it on purpose and it’s dishonest of you to do that.  See my post on 08/09/2020 and 10/29/2020 (where you were corrected on the matter).

I’m adding this to the list of the other times you've brought this up as theplains:  08/08/2012, 10/15/2012, 02/26/2015, 07/27/2016, 02/23/2017, 03/01/2017, 09/10/2019, 07/24/2020, 08/08/2020, 10/24/2020, and 07/10/2023.  Or posting as TheTanakas:  07/03/2021 or 11/25/2022.  Or posting as telnetd:  04/06/2023 or 11/16/2023.  Or posting as marineland (aka orion88:   10/07/2011, 11/07/2011, 01/01/2012, 02/27/2012.  

Thanks.

Yes, you already said that, and I explained how that doesn’t make any sense at all.

But the passage doesn’t say that God is merely the God of those other “gods”, rather it compares God to the other “gods” and says those gods are “among” him.  It says, “Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.”   

You apparently believe God is being compared to corrupt human judges.  There is no praise or honor in doing that, and that interpretation is disrespectful to God and completely illogical.

A week ago on the day before you posted your response, I was thinking about your interpretation of this verse and I was trying to see if your point of view has any merit by finding a way of interpreting the “gods” of Psalm 86:8 as something other than actual gods. 

So I (honestly) tried out this logic on my wife.  I first said to her:

“Among the squirrels there is none like unto you, my wife, neither are there any works among their works like unto your works”.

She looked at me with a scowl on her face, and said, “What are you doing?  That was very insulting comparing me to a squirrel”.

I explained what I was trying to do, and she shrugged it off.

Later in the day I tried it again in different ways:

I said to her, “Among the chickens there is none like unto you, my wife, neither are there any works among their works like unto your works”.   I thought this approach might help, since she likes chickens.

She replied, “You are trying that again?  That was just as bad.  You are being obnoxious.”

The third time I tried cats, but she thought that was just as insulting and again said I was obnoxious.  

Then finally I said, “Among the women of this planet there is none like unto you, my wife, neither are there any works among them like unto your works”.   

And to that she said, “Now that is flattering and that would normally make me feel respected and appreciated, but since you’ve been so obnoxious with the previous versions, I don’t think I believe you”.   (Ha ha).

Exodus 15:11 is similar to Psalm 86:8, it says: “Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?”   Are these “gods” also corrupt human judges?

The bottom line here is that Psalm 86:8 and Exodus 15:11 cannot make any reasonable sense unless the comparison is made to actual “gods” that are real and are the same classification of beings that God is, and are capable of works that are similar to his, although their works are certainly not as great or have the same magnitude of his.  To compare God to any created or non-existent thing (idols?) or corrupt human judges, or any other class of being is insulting and disrespectful.  It’s like comparing a human to a squirrel or a chicken or a cat.  And if you don’t believe me, try this experiment on someone you know and let me know how it goes for you.

Can you please explain how your interpretation of Psalm 86:8 or Exodus 15:11 makes any logical sense and shows praise and worship to God by comparing him to corrupt human judges?  “Among the corrupt human judges there is none like unto thee, O Lord, neither are there any works among the corrupt human judges like unto thy works”.  How is that being respectful to God?
 

You really need to read the Got Questions website article titled:  What is the divine council?

The article starts out:  

“Psalm 89:5–7 says, ‘The heavens praise your wonders, LORD, your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings? In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him.’  These verses present a divine council: heavenly beings referred to as ‘the council of the holy ones.’ Psalm 82:1 also indicates that ‘God has taken his place in the divine council’ (Psalm 82:1, ESV). The ‘divine council’ is also called the ‘great assembly’ (NIV), ‘heaven’s court’ (NLT), and ‘His own congregation’ (NASB).”

But the most important feature of this article is not so much what they say in the article itself, but in one of the links they provide in the “FOR FUTHER STUDY” section at the bottom.  The Got Questions website actually recommends the same book that I recommended to you (in a prior discussion) for understanding this topic:  The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible by Michael Heiser.  

I quoted from The Unseen Realm in my post to you on 09/19/2023, regarding the meaning of the denial statements (or one God rhetoric) used in the Old Testament.  

It is encouraging that the website would recommend this book for this topic, although the website doesn’t apply the scholarship provided by this book equally to other articles created on the site.

In the article titled, “What does the Bible mean by ‘you are gods’ / ‘ye are gods’ in Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34?, the Got Questions website at least hints at some of the views presented in The Unseen Realm, by providing the following as one of two possible interpretations of that chapter (bold emphasis is mine):

“1) The ‘gods’ are supernatural beings who rule under God. Psalm 82:1 says, ‘God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the gods.’ In the Hebrew, the phrase translated ‘great assembly’ speaks of a divine congregation or a divine council. Some interpret this passage as God warning that those in the divine council who continue making unjust decisions will die ‘like mere mortals’ and ‘fall like all other rulers’ (Psalm 82:2, 6–8). God created hell for Satan and his angels (Matthew 25:41), and we know He will bring justice to them at the right time. They will fall like mere mortals.”

The description above is close, but not exactly how Heiser describes these beings in his book (it is not talking about Satan and his angels).  He refers to them as “divine beings”, and they are “elohim” with him in a heavenly council.  

Heiser explains, “the real problem with the human view, though, is that it cannot be reconciled with other references in the Hebrew Old Testament that refer to a divine council of elohim.”   He then quotes Psalm 89:5-7 as one example of this, which he says “explicitly contradicts the notion of a divine council in which the elohim are humans”:

5 And so the heavens will praise your wonderful deed, O Yahweh, even your faithfulness, in the assembly of the holy ones.
6 For who in the sky is equal to Yahweh?  Who is like Yahweh among the sons of God,
7 a God feared greatly in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all surrounding him?

Heiser explains, “God’s divine council is an assembly in the heavens, not on earth. The language is unmistakable. This is precisely what we’d expect if we understand the elohim to be divine beings. It is utter nonsense if we think of them as humans. There is no reference in Scripture to a council of human beings serving Yahweh in the skies (Jews or otherwise).” (The Unseen Realm, p. 29)

There are other gods, yes, but your reasoning above is not correct.  God the Father is the “God of all other gods” as it says in Doctrine and Covenants 121:32. He is the one God “above all” (Ephesians 4:6), the “God of gods” (Deuteronomy 10:17).

Right, which is why Paul denies that those false gods are gods at all by saying that idols are “nothing” and “they be no gods”.  This is exactly why verse 5 can’t possibly be talking about those idols, because it would be a total contradiction for him to turn around and affirm that they really are gods after denying that they are gods.  

“Idols are not gods” + “there be gods many and lords many” = a contradiction if he meant idols the entire time.

Paul also mentions “lords many” along with the “gods many”.   Paul is referencing Deuteronomy 10:17 here:  “For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward”.  These are real “gods” and real “lords”, because God is not the God of nothing, he is not the God of idols or make-believe entities.  He is the God of “gods” that really exist.
 

All Christians who become gods would qualify to be one with God the Father, yes.

No (not in and of itself), but it does make them qualified for those blessings.  

When believers align their will with the Father and the Son, and Jesus is “in” them in the same way the Father is “in” Jesus, and the believer is “in” Jesus, they are made perfect in one and are in a position to be divine representatives of the name of Christ and his God, the Father. 

This is also why Jesus put his trust in those he calls to represent him, and says of them: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.” (John 13:20).  This shows that there is no difference between receiving Jesus or those who Jesus sends, or receiving the Father, because they are “one” with Jesus and the Father.

God goes far beyond what the scriptures teach.  There are so many more things to know about God than what can be contained in any of the scriptures.  That’s why God always works through prophets and apostles (and God doesn’t change).  

The Church of Jesus Christ (originally) didn’t derive its teachings directly from scripture, the teachings came through Jesus Christ.  And, after his resurrection, the teachings of the church were based on what Jesus taught and divine revelation from him to his appointed apostles and prophets.  The Church of Jesus Christ today works in exactly the same way (God doesn’t change).  

But because all the teachings come from God, they will always be in harmony with the word of God as revealed previously.  That doesn’t mean everything God reveals to us in the future will be found in prior scripture, but it will be in harmony with prior scripture since God is the source of all truth.  There may be some changes in implementation and practice (such as the transition from the gospel given to Abraham to the law of Moses, and then from the law of Moses to the gospel given under the new covenant by Jesus Christ), but the principles and truths will remain the same.

In my post on 07/26/2024, I explained the meaning of “Gentile” as it is used in the Bible and how the Hebrew word ggôyim (גֹּויִם) is translated as both “nations” and “Gentiles” throughout the Bible.  And the quote I provided from  Genesis 48:19 using the Jubilee Bible 2000 translation says Ephraim “shall become a multitude of Gentiles”. 

So based on that usage in scripture, what exactly is a “literal Gentile”?  When a literal Israelite is literally in a foreign nation, is he or she a literal Gentile or not?  Or what exactly does that mean?

I go with this definition of a Gentile as given in this January 1991 Ensign article, “Of the House of Israel”:

It is the latter portion of this definition that explains how a literal Israelite (by blood) can be a literal Gentile (in the political or geographical sense).  And this usage of the word is also evident in the biblical texts.  So I think your sarcasm is based on a one-sided definition of the word “Gentile”.

Regarding the lack of America’s relevance to the New Testament Jews, the Lord taught that He did not reveal it to them because of their stiffneckedness, unbelief, bias and assumptions (3 Nephi 15: 13 – 24). He expounds on the significance of other sheep in terms of the house of Israel's inheritance and the New Jerusalem in the whole of Chapters 16, and 21.

[InCognitus]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

This may be the longest post this board has had.  

I just made a couple of edits for formatting issues, and my finger got tired of scrolling. I need a motorized mouse scroller.

[theplains]

On 11/6/2024 at 9:51 AM, CV75 said:

So, a gentile's blood literally changes into the blood of Abraham by covenant. This is literally, truly, a matter of semantic. If you would post the seminary manual quote, I can show you how that works.

Page 57

This first comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful 
in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present 
knowledge, of a man who is of the literal seed of Abraham, than one that is a Gentile, though it
may not have half as much visible effect upon the body; for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the
literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by 
the pure spirit of intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out 
the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of
Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost. In such a case, there may be more
of a powerful effect upon the body, and visible to the eye, than upon an Israelite, while the 
Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile in pure intelligence" (Smith, Teachings, 149–50).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32501_eng.pdf?lang=eng

[CV75]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Page 57

This first comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful 
in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present 
knowledge, of a man who is of the literal seed of Abraham, than one that is a Gentile, though it
may not have half as much visible effect upon the body; for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the
literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by 
the pure spirit of intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out 
the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of
Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost. In such a case, there may be more
of a powerful effect upon the body, and visible to the eye, than upon an Israelite, while the 
Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile in pure intelligence" (Smith, Teachings, 149–50).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32501_eng.pdf?lang=eng

Thank you, in the meantime I had located this myself and included it in my comment.

Spiritually speaking, pure intelligence (spiritual power) has a visible effect upon the body, as many today still observe, e.g., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21151864/. I believe it is possible that the "old blood", and the "old man" can be spiritually purged, resulting in physically perceptible cues. What these might be in the blood would of course require a much finer, chemical-level discernment, but undoubtedly they exist since they contribute to the whole of the same organism whose countenance has become healthy and vibrant, kind and charitable, confident, alert, virtuous, etc.

[CV75]

@theplains What physical manifestations of the Holy Ghost have you experienced?