Ephraim, the birthright, and the gathering

[theplains]

On 11/15/2024 at 5:34 PM, CV75 said:

@theplains What physical manifestations of the Holy Ghost have you experienced?

Not really physically visible but more in line with a physical feeling, like what one experiences
when confronted with truth and error, good and evil.

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, theplains said:

Not really physically visible but more in line with a physical feeling, like what one experiences
when confronted with truth and error, good and evil.

Do you believe that these physical feelings are associated with literal changes in your blood (hormonal, chemical, etc.) and fall under the category of the spiritual experience reserved for Lord's faithful and observant Israel?

[theplains]

Just now, CV75 said:

Do you believe that these physical feelings are associated with literal changes in your blood (hormonal, chemical, etc.) and fall under the category of the spiritual experience reserved for Lord's faithful and observant Israel?

No. While I believe God can do what he wants, I don't believe he literally changes our blood into
the literal blood of Abraham when the Holy Spirit comes upon us. I also don't believe he changed
the skin color of the Lamanites so they would not be enticing to the Nephites.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

No. While I believe God can do what he wants, I don't believe he literally changes our blood into
the literal blood of Abraham when the Holy Spirit comes upon us. I also don't believe he changed
the skin color of the Lamanites so they would not be enticing to the Nephites.

Then why do you think our blood literally changes in connection with spiritual experiences? Calling this process or the blood one thing or another is irrelevant except to to give God the glory.

[theplains]

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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)

Prior to getting to go to Jerusalem, where are they gathering to?

Why to Jerusalem instead of Salt Lake City, Utah or Independence, Missouri?
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

Yes. Thank you.  CV75 gave a sufficient answer about the literal blood changing into the literal 
blood of Abraham for the Gentiles who believe and are acted upon by the Holy Ghost.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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).

The purification which Paul and some other men undertook was an isolated case and not a model 
for all Christians. Acts 21:24 seems to relate to the purification ritual for those four Israelite 
men who had taken a Nazarite vow. It was also applicable to women (Numbers 6:2, 18-21). 

This involved them shaving their heads. Paul was advised by the elders in Jerusalem to participate.  
This was suggested to counter rumors that Paul was teaching Jews to abandon the Law of Moses. By 
joining these men in their rites and paying for their expenses, Paul would publicly show that he 
still observed Jewish laws and customs.

There is no indication Paul performed all the abstinence entailed by the Nazarite vow (like bringing
a lamb for a trespass offering – Numbers 6:12), followed by shaving his head.

Christians did not go to the temple for marriage and proxy baptism.  The font was being used by 
the Levitical priests for ceremonial washing before and after the animal sacrifices.

You never did mention what ordinances you believe they were performing in the temple.  

In time, or maybe at the same time, the home church takes on a parallel role for meeting in the 
temple for fellowship, prayer, and worship.

In the context of temple-related practices, Acts 15 details the council at Jerusalem, where early 
church leaders, including Paul, discussed what would be required of Gentile converts. They decided 
that Gentiles did not need to fully adhere to the Law of Moses, which included many temple-related 
ordinances, but should:

Abstain from food sacrificed to idols.
Abstain from blood.
Avoid consuming things strangled.
Avoid fornication.

Paul's letters, including those to the Corinthians, emphasize faith in Christ, repentance,  
baptism, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost as fundamental ordinances for all Christians, 
rather than the specific temple ordinances observed in Jewish worship.

In the early days of Christianity, Israelite converts probably continued practicing certain 
temple-related ordinances due to their cultural and religious upbringing. 

Some of these included:

Participation in Temple Worship: Many Jewish Christians still participated in daily prayers and 
other aspects of communal worship at the temple in Jerusalem. This was a central part of Jewish 
life and continued until the temple's destruction in 70 A.D.

Observance of Jewish Festivals: Early Jewish Christians often continued to observe traditional 
Jewish festivals, which were tied to temple practices, such as Passover, Pentecost, and others, 
though they did so with a new understanding of these events in light of Christ.

Purification Rituals: Some of the purification and dietary laws were still observed by Jewish 
Christians for health reasons though the necessity of these practices under the Mosaic Law became 
diminished following the Atonement.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

The LDS seminary manual includes women as becoming priests.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual-2017/chapter-28-doctrine-and-covenants-76-50-119?lang=eng#p21

"Those who achieve their eternal potential and receive an inheritance in the celestial kingdom 
will become priests and kings, priestesses and queens, and their exaltation includes the promise 
that they are gods".
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

Where does the New Testament say that?  Or are you just stating what you believe again?

See above. I included comments on how Gentiles and Israelites interacted with the temple.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

“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?

There is one temple in the Book of Revelation, in heaven (Revelation 7:13-15; 11:19). There is 
no temple in the city of New Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven to earth. Outside of that 
city and on earth, there is no temple in the Millennium or afterwards.  Christians do not need 
the Old Testament system of things involving the temple.  Christian ordinances were not impacted 
by the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

"Spiritual Israel" is another term for those Gentiles and Israelites who become "Israel" (the 
people of God).

Ether 13:8 says, "Wherefore, the remnant of the house of Joseph shall be built upon this land; 
and it shall be a land of their inheritance; and they shall build up a holy city unto the Lord, 
like unto the Jerusalem of old; and they shall no more be confounded, until the end come when 
the earth shall pass away".

Do you believe some Gentiles, who make up "spiritual Israel", also inherit the land or do you 
believe that the land is reserved primarily for the remnant of the house of Joseph like Ether 13 
says?  

Is the "land" only the United States or does it encompass all of the Americas?

Why would only the house of Joseph build up that holy city?
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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?

That's the relevant question.  Why? Because America is not what their prophets are teaching the 
literal Israelites about their lands of inheritance.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

That's what I've been saying about the land covenant with Abraham and his literal, saved 
descendants.  This land covenant is not for Gentile members who become "spiritual Israel" 
when they accept Christ as Savior.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

 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.

There is no scripture that geographically identifies the Americas as the choice land above all 
other lands.  I give some credit to the honesty of the LDS Church in that it admits, I think, 
that it cannot identify any Book of Mormon place anywhere in the Americas. This hasn't stopped
the speculative teachings however.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

How do you believe Jacob 5:21, 23, 25, 43 applies to Israel?
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

You're right to some degree. I should have been more precise.

15:  The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, 

16:  Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the 
children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the 
stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: 

17:  And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. 

18:  And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us 
what thou meanest by these? 

19:  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. 

20:  And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes. 

In verse 16, Ezekiel initially has the sticks in his hand and writes upon them. Ezekiel does not 
write books.  In verse 17, the two sticks become one stick in Ezekiel's hand. He has no Bible or 
Book of Mormon.  In verse 19, God says the stick (the two nations) will now be one in His hand.  
In verse 20, the sticks are back in Ezekiel's hand.  Verse 22 identifies the two sticks as two 
nations.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

But this is separate from the land inheritance God promised to literal Israel.  Unless you believe 
the Old Testament promises to Israel have been usurped by the Church.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

Where are the "meek" inhabitants of the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms?
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

What other people groups (non-Israelites) was Nephi aware of?  

How do you speculate he knew he was on a continent instead of an island?
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

You assume ALL (saved and unsaved) literal descendants of Abraham will be squashed into the land 
of Israel for their inheritance.  And don't forget … D&C says the earth will be celestialized, so 
the telestials and terrestrials are eliminated from inheriting Earth.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

That’s because the apostles at the time of Christ were first sent to the house of Israel, it was their purpose and mission.

After Christ, the ministry eventually spread to the regions beyond Judea. While they were first 
sent to the house of Israel, this did not preclude them from preaching to the Gentiles in parallel.  
They did not visit all lands, first preach to the Israelites, determine they were finished 
preaching to them, and then they finally turn to the Gentiles.  Evangelism was done in parallel.

For example, I go to New York City, in the Bronx and preach the gospel to the Jews.  After 
preaching to the Jews in one synagogue, I also find Gentiles and preach to them.  I don't speak 
to all Jews in the Bronx first and then leave the Gentiles in darkness by going to Queens and then 
start with the Jews there. I don't visit all the boroughs of New York City seeking only the Jews 
first before going back and starting all over in the boroughs for the Gentiles next. Evangelism 
is in parallel. 

Remember, Paul viewed himself as apostle to the Gentiles and Peter the apostle to the Jews.  This 
does not mean they each respectively excluded preaching to the others.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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?

We don't know much of what Jesus taught them in that 40-day period.  During his mortal ministry, 
I believe Jesus gave them a glimpse of the Gentiles coming into the fold by referring to the 
other sheep (John 10:16) but they would not yet understand this. 

"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".

This makes perfect sense if you understand the Israelites and the Gentiles as the "one fold" and 
Christ as the "one shepherd".

However, the LDS Church believes these "other sheep" are the people Jesus would appear to in the 
Americas after the resurrection.  Supposedly this would include the dispersed Israelites that 
Jesus would also visit before and after he came to the Nephites.

In another case, none of the apostles knew what Jesus meant by rising from the dead until he 
appeared to them after the resurrection. And even when he appeared, many initially doubted. 

The apostle Paul is commissioned to preach to the Gentiles before Peter's interaction with 
Cornelius.  The original disciples would not know about Paul until years later.

Why wasn't Peter given the vision to go among the Gentiles shortly after Pentecost?  I don't 
know.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

The scriptures I mentioned earlier give an ample explanation of why the Gentiles perfectly fit 
the "other sheep".  The original sheep pen are the Israelites but they do not make up the entire 
sheep fold.

There are many-a-scholar too in the LDS Church that have their opinions.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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).

Jesus, during his mortal ministry, went to the house of Israel.  Afterwards, he would go to the 
Gentiles through evangelists.

"For he [Christ] is our peace, who hath made both [Israelites and Gentiles] one [one fold], 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 [Israelites and Gentiles] both unto God in one body 
[one fold] by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And [Jesus] came and preached peace to 
you [the Gentiles] which were afar off, and to them that were nigh" (Ephesians 2:14-17). 

It's really easy to believe the scripture when you put aside the LDS teaching.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

Why is there no Seventy commissioned in the Book of Mormon?

The Seventy in the days of Christ were to perform evangelism in the areas Jesus himself would 
come, prior to his resurrection.

"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. And heal the sick that are therein, 
and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. And the seventy returned again with 
joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name".

The Twelve also had miraculous powers:

"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. Heal the sick, cleanse 
the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give". 

The signs and wonders are further spoken of (Acts 5:12,15-16; 6:8; 8:6; 14:3; 15:12; 19:11; and 
Romans 15:19).

The church had the Twelve, not the Fifteen.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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?

Maybe if you give provide 1 or 2 key examples each from the Book of Mormon, Bible, Pearl of Great 
Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, or General Conference, or LDS Church seminary manuals, then I 
could address it more appropriately.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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?

I am not a member of the LDS Church. I never was. 

My life is too busy to spend time on a message board and pretend to be different people. What 
Latter-day Saints I don't meet here, I meet in person with young missionaries in my area. They do
get confused when I bring up some LDS teachings from the past.  They are more comfortable with 
milk it seems.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

 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 post various things from church publications and have a hard time getting a "Do you believe 
this is true or false?" from some people.  They say it's an opinion, or a speculation, or it's 
not really a doctrine of the church, or it's something we don't fully understand.  But it all 
boils down to … "It isn't a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true".

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/boyd-k-packer/follow-rule/
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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).

I saw from an earlier version of your reply, you had the following in 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.

I had based my reply on that inclusion, which it appears you edited it out.

The Apostle Paul prophesied that "in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving 
heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils".

Yes. It's unfortunate that the same apostasy affected the LDS Church, all the way to 1978.  Many 
Latter-day Saints were lead into error by following the teachings of their leaders.

The ban was considered a doctrine.  This would make sense since a supposed revelation from God 
to ban some from holding the priesthood would need to be reversed with another supposed revelation 
from God to now allowing them to hold the priesthood.

"It is true that the negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been 
the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him, although 
we know of no such statement in any revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or 
the Bible. However, in the Pearl of Great Price, we find the following statement written by 
Abraham: ‘Now this first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, 
the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. 
Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly 
all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first 
generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of 
Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of 
wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood" (April 1924 Improvement Era).

https://archive.org/details/improvementera2706unse

It is also discussed in chapters 15 and 16 of the Way to Perfection (written by former LDS 
President).

This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph 
Smith. At a meeting of the general authorities of the Church, held August 22, 1895, the question 
of the status of the negro in relation to the Priesthood was asked and the minutes of that meeting 
say:

President George Q. Cannon remarked that the Prophet taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain 
could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed 
of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain's offspring" (pages 110-111).

https://archive.org/details/waytoperfections00smit
 

For your comment about Caleb A. Shreeve, see above.  The ban was called a doctrine, several times.

 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

The idea that those of African-descent are cursed and given a skin of blackness as a sign of the 
curse is false.

The sign of the curse being dark skin originated in the Book of Mormon.  We find the skin of 
blackness also mentioned in the Pearl of Great Price. 

The color of one's skin will also be an issue of one's spiritual purity on Judgment Day (Jacob 
3:8-9). This is taught by the LDS Church in its "Book of Mormon - Seminary - Teacher Manual".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-seminary-teacher-manual-2024/23-mosiah-29-alma-4/233-teacher?lang=eng

"Mormon prophets and modern prophets have taught it is wrong to revile or look down upon people 
because of the color of their skin (see Jacob 3:9)."  

The manual omits verse 8.  Adding it makes the LDS teaching more clear.

"O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter 
than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. Therefore, a commandment 
I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the 
darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye 
shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their 
fathers".

This is not in harmony with the Bible.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

... 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).

What do you mean by a departure from or corruption in redefining the relationship between the 
Father and the Son?
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

I said these scriptures are in harmony with the Holy Bible, not that they all contain the same revealed truths.

How are the LDS teachings of Heavenly Father being a man who became a God and Jesus being the 
first spirit son born of heavenly parents, who also became a God, in harmony with any LDS 
scripture?
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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).

I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one God, not three Gods. I am not a polytheist. I 
don't believe in the existence of Gods before or after Heavenly Father. From what I know of LDS 
theology, the Godhead consists of three Gods: God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost. They are three distinct beings, each a God, united in purpose and harmonious in their 
work.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

From everlasting to everlasting is synonymous with from eternity to eternity. Some translations 
even use "everlasting life" as opposed to "eternal life" in John 3, but they mean the same thing.

Joseph Smith taught, "I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of 
a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? ... God himself was once as we 
are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! ... In order to understand 
the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is 
necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am 
going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all 
eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see ... These ideas 
are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple".

This is not consistent with any scripture.

The LDS Church also teaches Jesus became a God too.

This is not consistent with any scripture.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

"Like him", for exalted beings, means "they will have everything that our Heavenly Father and 
Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge" (Gospel Principles).  

No Gods in LDS theology (past, present, or future) will ever be clones of each other but the LDS 
Church teaches exalted children of Heavenly Father will be equal with him.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

Another revelation soon confirmed that "the saints shall be filled with his glory, and receive 
their inheritance and be made equal with him."

This links to Doctrine and Covenants 88:107 ("And then shall the angels be crowned with the glory 
of his might, and the saints shall be filled with his glory, and receive their inheritance and be 
made equal with him").
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

Right.  But the God of your spirit children (assuming you become a God with your heavenly wife 
or wives) will be YOU. This was insinuated in the 1997 Gospel Principles (which they removed from 
the current version).  YOU don't worship the Father of Elohim because that God (your Grandfather 
God) is not your God.

"They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children 
also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly 
Father. They will be an eternal family".

This "same relationship" includes worship.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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”.

Do you consider them "Gods in embryo"?

The 1981 version quotes Alma 12:31 as "Wherefore, he gave commandments unto men, they having first 
transgressed the first commandments as to things which were temporal, and becoming as Gods, knowing 
good from evil, placing themselves in a state to act, or being placed in a state to act according 
to their wills and pleasures, whether to do evil or to do good".

The 2013 version changes "as Gods" to "as gods".

Is there a doctrinal shift here?  

Is it now more appropriate to say "gods in embryo"?
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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? 

I don't believe we are the spirit children of heavenly parents.  I believe that we are children 
of Heavenly Father only in the sense that he created us.  This has nothing to do with children 
being literally born to a heavenly father and a heavenly mother (or mothers).
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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?

Acts 17:28-29 does not say that we are literal offspring of heavenly parents, having the same 
nature as them.  We are offspring only in the sense of our being created by him.  From what I 
know of LDS theology, people are not created. They existed as eternal intelligences (gnolaum) 
before being born to heavenly parents.

I believe God is of a different nature than those whom he created. So God has a different nature 
from his angels.  Humans also have a different nature than angels. Humans are also of a different 
nature from plants and animals.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

I don't believe the Nicene Creed teaches the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one being. You can 
interpret it that way if you wish. They are 3 separate personages but they are one God.

Humans being one in unity and one with the will of God does not make them Gods.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

Joseph Smith taught Heavenly Father (Elohim of our Earth) had a father before him.  So Elohim (of 
our Earth) is not above the Father of Elohim.

The Holy Spirit is also taught to be another spirit child of Heavenly Parents. President Heber C. 
Kimball stated, "The Holy Ghost is a man; he is one of the sons of our Father and our God; and he 
is that man that stood next to Jesus Christ" (Journal of Discourses, 5:179).

https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/pdf/JoD05/JoD05.pdf
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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).

Okay. Sydney Rigdon (a member of the First Presidency between 1832-1844) was leading astray all 
those who believed in his theory about the Godhead. After Joseph Smith's death, Rigdon tried to 
establish himself as a leader of the Church but was not supported by the majority of the members. 
Instead, Brigham Young and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were sustained as leaders. Rigdon 
eventually led his own small group called the Rigdonites, but his influence waned over time.

As Boyd K Packer said, "It isn't a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it 
is true".
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

First begotten does not mean first procreated via heavenly parents.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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?

Some translations use firstborn instead of firstbegotten.  Firstborn in this case means the primacy 
(pre-eminence) of Christ. It could also mean coming into power and authority.

Begotten in the case of Christ does not mean created.  Firstborn does not always mean first born 
either. 
 
We see this in other passages too.  Firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18) and the firstborn 
of all creation (Colossians 1:15).

Yes. In LDS theology, Jesus has always existed, just like you – as an eternal, uncreated intelligence 
(gnolaum). After being born first to his heavenly parents, he progressed into becoming a God in 
his pre-mortal life.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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?

The concept of "another Jesus" is also found in Paul's warning (2 Corinthians 11:4). The LDS and 
JW "Jesus" fits the bill.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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 ... 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”.

I am not a Trinitarian.  The Father and the Son are not "one being".

The LDS teaching of Heavenly Father and Jesus becoming Gods is not scriptural. 

Jesus and the Father being "one" does not mean they became Gods.  Christians becoming "one" like 
the Father and the Son being "one" does not mean they will be formed into Gods.

The teaching that the Holy Spirit is another spirit child of heavenly parents is also not 
scriptural.  

Then we have Joseph Smith's teaching that Heavenly Father not being God from all eternity but 
who rather became a God.

Then there's Heavenly Mother, who herself became a God. I prefer the term "Heavenly Mothers" 
since Doctrine and Covenants 132 leads one to believe Heavenly Father is a polygamist. 

Those teachings (Father, Mother, Jesus, Holy Ghost becoming Gods) do not correlate with what 
Jesus and the apostles taught.  They are not found in any LDS scripture.  However, Latter-day 
Saints believe God has called LDS prophets to teach such doctrines.

A lot of people and false prophets have come up with teachings which have no scriptural basis 
and have deceived their followers.

 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

I'm not referring to this.  I am referring to a person, who not a God now, believes he can be 
formed (through progression) into a God someday.

The same is taught about the LDS Jesus in his pre-mortal life.  He "attained that pinnacle of 
intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent 
state." (Religion 430-431 – Doctrines of Gospel Student Manual, chapter 4).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32501_eng.pdf
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

In the beginning, the child has no intelligence. As the child grows, his intelligence increases 
with the help of his parents, kindergarten, and then grade school, college/university, and then 
a doctorate or PhD.

In the beginning, the infant child is not a doctor or a lawyer.  He is not a doctor-in-embryo or 
a lawyer-in-embryo.  With education and experience, a doctor or lawyer is formed.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

Humans are not gods-in-embryo.  They are not of the same nature as God. Neither are angels (Lucifer 
for example) the same order as God.  The LDS Church teaches that the only beings who become Gods 
are those who inherit the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.  All others are not Gods. 

The Introduction notes for Doctrine and Covenants 132 says, "Celestial marriage and a continuation 
of the family unit enable men to become [to be formed into] gods".

"Gods" is more appropriate here.

Verse 17 says those who remain single will become angels.  "For these angels did not abide my law; 
therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their 
saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever 
and ever".

Verse 18 says the angels and the gods [really Gods] are appointed there.  

Using the analogy of education, the university student becomes [is formed into] a graduate.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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?

Eternal life, as defined by the LDS Church, does not mean becoming a God and living life as a God.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/true-to-the-faith/eternal-life?lang=eng

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the 
world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but 
have everlasting life" (John 3:14-16).

Eternal life in the context of what Jesus said is to be eternally with him, even if we die. Those 
who perish are those who will not reside with Christ.

Only God has existed as God from eternity to all eternity. His life is eternal.  Joseph Smith 
taught that God (Elohim of our Earth) has not existed as God from all eternity. He and his wife 
(wives) became Gods by following the Plan of Salvation of their God.

People can receive the gift of eternal life through faith in Christ but we have not existed 
eternally in the past.  LDS theology has people in progressing in various stages (uncreated, 
eternal intelligences, then being formed into spirit children, then becoming mortal children, 
then being formed into Gods).

"The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself" (Journal of Discourses 
3:93).  In short, Gods are formed.

https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/pdf/JoD03/JoD03.pdf
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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?

Jesus has always existed as God.  He was not the first spirit child of heavenly parents who 
became a God.

Being exalted does not mean being formed into (becoming) a God according to the Bible and almost 
all of the LDS canon. The Book of Mormon doesn't mention "exaltation" even once but there are 
seven occurrences of the word "exalt". The Bible (KJV) has about twenty-six. The Pearl of Great 
Price has zero.  Where "exalt" is found, none of them means becoming a God.

The only place "exalt" is associated with becoming a god [should really be understood as a God] 
is Doctrine and Covenants 132.  And that is associated with marriage and eternal increase.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.”

Are any of these "gods" worshipped by anyone?
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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?

"Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy 
works" (Psalm 86:8).

"Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful 
in praises, doing wonders?" (Exodus 15:11).

This is a comparison of the true God (the LORD) with all other gods who are believed to be true 
deities by those who worship them.

"And Jethro said, Blessed be the LORD, who hath delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, 
and out of the hand of Pharaoh, who hath delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. 
Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he 
was above them" (Exodus 18:19-11).

These gods of Egypt, believed to be real and true gods by the Egyptians, were actually false.  So 
the LORD is above all gods that are believed to be true by the people.  

God executed judgement against those whom the Egyptians believed to be true gods and whom they 
worshipped (Exodus 12:12; Numbers 33:4).

I believe the gods of Psalm 82 is a reference to corrupt human judges, regarded as children of 
the most high God. He is judging among the gods (among the Israelite judges who were regarded as 
gods, as Moses was),

They are denounced for committing various sins (judging unjusting, accepting wicked persons, not 
defending the poor, fatherless, needy, etc).

"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge 
unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice 
to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. 
They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the 
earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 
But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for 
thou shalt inherit all nations".

If you believe these are gods who are being worshipped in some other realm, then God (Elohim) is 
revealing evil deities.

There is no disrespecting of God when you understand it that way.

Based on all the Gods in LDS theology (past, present, and future), there are many whose works, 
although not exactly equal, can compare with Elohim.  The LDS seminary manual says we can even be 
equal with Heavenly Father.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

You really need to read the Got Questions website article titled:  What is the divine council?

The article begins with "Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings?".

In the LDS pantheon of Gods (heavenly beings), many Gods are alike although not exactly alike, 
with Elohim.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

“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.”

What do you mean by supernatural beings?  Deities, angels, or something else?  Are any of these 
"gods" worshipped by anyone, anywhere?
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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).

Do you believe God (Elohim of our Earth) is above/greater than his Father God?
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

Same question as above.  Do you believe God (Elohim of our Earth) is above/greater than his Father 
God or his Grandfather God?

The seminary manual says the spirit children of Heavenly Father (Elohim of our Earth) can be equal 
with Heavenly Father.   There is no talk about being greater or lesser than Him.  It's about being 
equal, though not exactly alike.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

Another revelation soon confirmed that "the saints shall be filled with his glory, and receive 
their inheritance and be made equal with him."

This links to Doctrine and Covenants 88:107 ("And then shall the angels be crowned with the glory 
of his might, and the saints shall be filled with his glory, and receive their inheritance and be 
made equal with him").
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

All Christians who become gods would qualify to be one with God the Father, yes.

The phrase "who become Gods" is more appropriate, unless you consider Elohim a god instead of a 
God.

THE STRAITNESS OF THE WAY. Mortality is the testing or proving ground for exaltation to find out 
who among the children of God are worthy to become Gods themselves, and the Lord has informed us 
that "few there be that find it" (Doctrines of Salvation).

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

In the resurrection, some are raised to be angels; others are raised to become Gods (History of 
the Church, Volume 5, chapter 22; Teachings of Joseph Smith, 1938).

https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-book/history-of-the-church-volume-5/volume-5-chapter-22
https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf

We have been informed in preceding paragraphs, that men, through obedience, attain to the Fulness 
of all knowledge and become Gods (The Seer, Orson Pratt, page 130).

https://ia904606.us.archive.org/29/items/seereditedbyorso01unse/seereditedbyorso01unse_bw.pdf

Also, being "made equal" with God the Father has been mentioned several times already.
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:24 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

The LDS doctrines of Heavenly Father being a man and then becoming a God and Jesus (the spirit 
brother of an angel called Lucifer) being the first spirit child born of heavenly parents, who 
also became a God, are not in harmony with any LDS scripture. 

Maybe you can tell me how you believe some woman had her sins forgiven and then went on to becoming 
a Goddess and Heavenly Mother of our Earth is in harmony with scripture.

Or maybe you can tell me how the Holy Spirit also being a child of heavenly parents is in harmony 
with scripture.

 

[theplains]

On 11/18/2024 at 11:00 AM, CV75 said:

Then why do you think our blood literally changes in connection with spiritual experiences? Calling this process or the blood one thing or another is irrelevant except to to give God the glory.

I don't believe blood type changes as the seminary manual teaches.

[InCognitus]

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

Prior to getting to go to Jerusalem, where are they gathering to?

Why to Jerusalem instead of Salt Lake City, Utah or Independence, Missouri?

We have already discussed this, over and over again.  Reread this entire thread, and keep in mind the way that the Lord gathered his people the first time (at the Exodus out of Egypt and gathering at the temple of Mount Sinai to make covenants) prior to them being led into the lands promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  And now we are experiencing when “the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people”.  There is no reason to expect that the gathering the second time would follow a different pattern than the first time.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

The purification which Paul and some other men undertook was an isolated case and not a model 
for all Christians. Acts 21:24 seems to relate to the purification ritual for those four Israelite 
men who had taken a Nazarite vow. It was also applicable to women (Numbers 6:2, 18-21). 

This involved them shaving their heads. Paul was advised by the elders in Jerusalem to participate.  
This was suggested to counter rumors that Paul was teaching Jews to abandon the Law of Moses. By 
joining these men in their rites and paying for their expenses, Paul would publicly show that he 
still observed Jewish laws and customs.

There is no indication Paul performed all the abstinence entailed by the Nazarite vow (like bringing
a lamb for a trespass offering – Numbers 6:12), followed by shaving his head.

In your post on 11/05/2024, you asked me “What sacred purposes do you believe the temple served for Christians prior to it being destroyed by the Romans?”   Your question was about the Jewish temple at Jerusalem (obviously) since it was the one destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.

I gave you a synopsis of how Christians used the Jerusalem temple very much like you are describing above.  So we are in agreement on these things.  The point is that Christians still revered the temple as a sacred place for the things of God even after the coming of Christ.  It was not something that they discarded as no longer relevant as you insinuated; they continued “daily with one accord in the temple”, it was still important to them.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

Christians did not go to the temple for marriage and proxy baptism.  The font was being used by 
the Levitical priests for ceremonial washing before and after the animal sacrifices.

Not to the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, no.  I never said they did (nor do I believe they did).

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

You never did mention what ordinances you believe they were performing in the temple.  

You never did ask me what ordinances I believe they were performing in the temple.  I don’t believe they were performing any ordinances in the Jewish temple at Jerusalem.  That does not mean they did not perform those ordinances elsewhere, because it is obvious that they did.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

The LDS seminary manual includes women as becoming priests.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual-2017/chapter-28-doctrine-and-covenants-76-50-119?lang=eng#p21

"Those who achieve their eternal potential and receive an inheritance in the celestial kingdom 
will become priests and kings, priestesses and queens, and their exaltation includes the promise 
that they are gods".

That happens to those in the future in the celestial kingdom, yes.  But currently only men are ordained to priesthood offices in this life.  

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

Where does the New Testament say that?  Or are you just stating what you believe again?

See above. I included comments on how Gentiles and Israelites interacted with the temple.

You included lots of comments on how Gentiles and Israelites interacted with the Jewish temple at Jerusalem, but you didn’t answer the question.  Remember, my question was in response to your assertion as quoted below:

On 11/5/2024 at 7:51 AM, theplains said:

No temple ordinances were required for the Gentile and Israelite Christians.

In response to the above, I asked you, “Where does the New Testament say that?”  Meaning, where does it say, “no temple ordinances were required for Gentile and Israelite Christians”?   (It doesn’t).

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

“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?

There is one temple in the Book of Revelation, in heaven (Revelation 7:13-15; 11:19). There is 
no temple in the city of New Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven to earth. Outside of that 
city and on earth, there is no temple in the Millennium or afterwards.  Christians do not need 
the Old Testament system of things involving the temple.  Christian ordinances were not impacted 
by the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.

And you still didn’t answer the question that I was asking about Revelation 21:22.

Before I get back to that, let me address each of your comments in the paragraph above as follows:

• There is one temple in the Book of Revelation, in heaven (Revelation 7:13-15; 11:19). 

You forgot about Revelation 3:12, where Jesus says that those who overcome are made to be a “pillar in in the temple of my God” and they will “go no more out”.  A person who is a “pillar” is regarded as reliable or essential to the support of something.  For example, Peter, James, and John were considered to be “pillars” in the church (Galatians 2:9), and the church itself was called “the pillar and ground of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)   

So Revelation 3:12 is confirmation of the continued importance of the temple and those who serve in it as it pertains to New Testament Christianity.

• There is no temple in the city of New Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven to earth. 

Yes, and you still didn’t answer the question on why that was so noteworthy!  (I’ll ask the question again below). 

• Outside of that city and on earth, there is no temple in the Millennium or afterwards.  

The city of New Jerusalem comes down from heaven after the Millennium (compare Revelation 20 to 21).  It is only then that the lack of a temple in that city is noteworthy.  Why would that be so noteworthy if there is no temple in the Millennium as you imagine?  

• Christians do not need the Old Testament system of things involving the temple.  

That is correct.  The system of things involving the temple was changed at the coming of Christ.

• Christian ordinances were not impacted by the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.

I agree, Christian temple ordinances were done elsewhere.

But here we are, back to the question that you still haven’t answered.  In your post on 10/02/2024 you said, “We don't build temples because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost.”  In that statement you imply that temples no longer serve any purpose in New Testament Christianity “because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost”.  Yet when we compare what you say to Christian behavior in New Testament times, they were “continuing daily with one accord in the temple” (Acts 2:46), and those Christians who “overcome” are “pillars” in the temple of the God of Jesus Christ (Revelation 3:12).   

So if temples no longer serve any purpose in Christianity and you no longer “build temples because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost” (as you suppose), then why does the biblical text go out of its way to point out the fact that the city of new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven after the earth is celestialized has no temple in it?  (Revelation 21:22).  Why is that even noteworthy if temples were done away since the time of Christ as you seem to think?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

"Spiritual Israel" is another term for those Gentiles and Israelites who become "Israel" (the 
people of God).

Or, they are literal Gentiles who are literal Israelites (as discussed in my last post).

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

Ether 13:8 says, "Wherefore, the remnant of the house of Joseph shall be built upon this land; 
and it shall be a land of their inheritance; and they shall build up a holy city unto the Lord, 
like unto the Jerusalem of old; and they shall no more be confounded, until the end come when 
the earth shall pass away".

Do you believe some Gentiles, who make up "spiritual Israel", also inherit the land or do you 
believe that the land is reserved primarily for the remnant of the house of Joseph like Ether 13 
says?  

Is the "land" only the United States or does it encompass all of the Americas?

Why would only the house of Joseph build up that holy city?

The Lord doesn’t distinguish between “spiritual Israel” (as you call it) and the remnant of the house of Joseph.  Joseph was to become a “multitude of Gentiles” (nations) as the scripture says, and it is to that promise from God that the inheritance is given.

Why would the house of Joseph be the ones building up that holy city?  For the same reason as the topic of this entire thread.  Go back and read it from the beginning.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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?

That's the relevant question.  Why? Because America is not what their prophets are teaching the 
literal Israelites about their lands of inheritance.

You forget that “their prophets” (in a major part of the Bible) were prophets pertaining only to Judea, not the northern tribes.  So “their prophets” would have no concern about Ephraim and Manasseh and any inheritance of theirs in the Americas.  “Their prophets” had their hands full with problems of their own in their part of the world.

But the prophets pertaining to the northern tribes were disbursed throughout the world, and their writings aren’t contained in the Bible.  And God doesn’t forget his people.

And the initial prophecies about the land of Canaan as promised to Abraham and his seed still symbolizes the initial covenant made with Abraham.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

That's what I've been saying about the land covenant with Abraham and his literal, saved 
descendants.  This land covenant is not for Gentile members who become "spiritual Israel" 
when they accept Christ as Savior.

Who are the “seed of Abraham” or “children of Abraham” according to the Bible?   

God told Abraham, “Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:  For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.  And 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 13:14–16)

Who do you think God had in mind when he said to Abraham that “thy seed” shall inherit that land forever, and also “thy seed” shall be numbered as the dust of the earth?  

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

How do you believe Jacob 5:21, 23, 25, 43 applies to Israel?

Jacob 5:21, 23, and 25 refers back to verses 8 and 13-14, where the Lord (Jesus) of the vineyard (the world) cut off branches from the tame olive tree (Israel) and “hid the natural branches of the tame olive tree in the nethermost part of the vineyard”.  They represent unnamed tribes of scattered Israel to various parts of the world, in all different conditions, and the Lord goes to visit them (Jesus was sent only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”). 

Verse 43 likely refers to the Nephites and Lamanites in their fallen and apostate condition.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

You're right to some degree. I should have been more precise.

15:  The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, 

16:  Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the 
children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the 
stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: 

17:  And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. 

18:  And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us 
what thou meanest by these? 

19:  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. 

20:  And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes. 

In verse 16, Ezekiel initially has the sticks in his hand and writes upon them. Ezekiel does not 
write books.  In verse 17, the two sticks become one stick in Ezekiel's hand. He has no Bible or 
Book of Mormon.  In verse 19, God says the stick (the two nations) will now be one in His hand.  
In verse 20, the sticks are back in Ezekiel's hand.  Verse 22 identifies the two sticks as two 
nations.

We have already discussed this previously, over and over.  I already explained that the two writing tablets (as it is translated in the New English Bible) symbolize the two nations (northern and southern kingdoms) and their records (they are not the records themselves).  See specifically my post on 04/19/2024.  Reread the thread.  

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

But this is separate from the land inheritance God promised to literal Israel.  Unless you believe 
the Old Testament promises to Israel have been usurped by the Church.

I believe the Old Testament promises to Abraham apply to all the faithful of Abraham’s seed.  Nothing is usurped by the Church, they are one in the same.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

Where are the "meek" inhabitants of the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms?

Those who inherit the celestialized earth are the meek.    

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

What other people groups (non-Israelites) was Nephi aware of?  

How do you speculate he knew he was on a continent instead of an island?

The Jaredites, for one.  

As for the “island” comment, see our prior discussions on that topic.  

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

You assume ALL (saved and unsaved) literal descendants of Abraham will be squashed into the land 
of Israel for their inheritance.  And don't forget … D&C says the earth will be celestialized, so 
the telestials and terrestrials are eliminated from inheriting Earth.

I assume no such thing.  Did you not even read what I wrote last time at all?   Or are you just ignoring my arguments just so you can repeat what you believe over and over?  Go back and reread what I said in that section.

I clearly said “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 [i.e. “the saved”] that lived and died from the beginning of creation.”  

The 8 billion people I calculated are for “the saved” who inherit the celestial kingdom and inherit the earth, and that number is very conservative given that on average that 27% of newborn babies died in their first year of life (prior to modern times), and little children are heirs of the celestial kingdom.  

As for the seed of Abraham, in the book of Ecclesiasticus (in the Apocrypha), it is says of Abraham: “Abraham was a great father of many people: in glory was there none like unto him; who kept the law of the most High, and was in covenant with him: he established the covenant in his flesh; and when he was proved, he was found faithful. Therefore he assured him by an oath, that he would bless the nations in his seed, and that he would multiply him as the dust of the earth, and exalt his seed as the stars, and cause them to inherit from sea to sea, and from the river unto the utmost part of the land.”  (Ecclesiasticus 44:19–21)

In Genesis 13:14-15, God promised Abraham that his seed would be given the land “forever”.  Therefore, God’s promises to Abraham about his seed being multiplied as the dust of the earth and exalted as the stars are pertaining to the faithful seed of Abraham (i.e. “the saved”), the only ones who are given the land “forever”. 

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

We don't know much of what Jesus taught them in that 40-day period.

But we do know that Jesus couldn’t have possibly taught them to go to the Gentiles during that forty-day period, or otherwise 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?

Don’t you think that at least one of the eleven apostles would have remembered that Jesus said “Go to all the world – meaning the Gentiles”?  Obviously he couldn’t have possibly meant for them to do that until Acts 10.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

During his mortal ministry, 
I believe Jesus gave them a glimpse of the Gentiles coming into the fold by referring to the 
other sheep (John 10:16) but they would not yet understand this. 

They wouldn’t have understood that he meant the Gentiles because clearly that’s not what Jesus meant, since the Gentiles would not “hear [his] voice” and Jesus did not “bring” them personally, because Jesus clearly said that he was only sent “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”.  

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

Why wasn't Peter given the vision to go among the Gentiles shortly after Pentecost?  I don't 
know.

I do.  Jesus didn’t tell them they could even consider going to the Gentiles until Acts 10.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

The scriptures I mentioned earlier give an ample explanation of why the Gentiles perfectly fit 
the "other sheep".  The original sheep pen are the Israelites but they do not make up the entire 
sheep fold.

The scriptures you mentioned give an explanation on how the Gentiles were adopted into the fold later (after Acts 10).  But the original sheep are the Israelites that make up the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” that Jesus said would hear his voice and he would go to personally.

The Gentiles were not adopted into the fold until later and Jesus did not go to them personally (he sent his apostles to do that).

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

There are many-a-scholar too in the LDS Church that have their opinions.

But opinions are different from what God has revealed to us in his scripture:

“16 This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them:  17 That 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. 18 And now, because of stiffneckedness and unbelief they understood not my word; therefore I was commanded to say no more of the Father concerning this thing unto them. 19 But, verily, I say unto you that the Father hath commanded me, and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated from among them because of their iniquity; therefore it is because of their iniquity that they know not of you.  20 And verily, I say unto you again that the other tribes hath the Father separated from them; and it is because of their iniquity that they know not of them. 21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: 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. 22 And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching.  23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost.  24 But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me.

“1 And verily, verily, I say unto you that I have other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to minister.   2 For they of whom I speak are they who have not as yet heard my voice; neither have I at any time manifested myself unto them.  3 But I have received a commandment of the Father that I shall go unto them, and that they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered among my sheep, that there may be one fold and one shepherd; therefore I go to show myself unto them.”  (3 Nephi 15:16–16:3)

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

Jesus, during his mortal ministry, went to the house of Israel.  Afterwards, he would go to the 
Gentiles through evangelists.

Afterwards he did not go to the Gentiles, he sent his apostles.  The Gentiles did not “hear his voice”, they heard the message through his apostles.  This is among the many reasons your interpretation of John 10:16 doesn’t work.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

"For he [Christ] is our peace, who hath made both [Israelites and Gentiles] one [one fold], 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 [Israelites and Gentiles] both unto God in one body 
[one fold] by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And [Jesus] came and preached peace to 
you [the Gentiles] which were afar off, and to them that were nigh" (Ephesians 2:14-17). 

It's really easy to believe the scripture when you put aside the LDS teaching.

This is just cherry-picking verses to support your presupposed interpretation.  There is no question that the Gentiles are adopted into the fold later by being grafted into the olive tree of Israel (Romans 11).   But we are talking about what Jesus meant when he said there were “other sheep” that he would personally bring and they would “hear his voice” and follow the good shepherd and become part of his fold, and there would be “one fold” and “one shepherd”.  

And Jesus always said that he was only sent to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”.   And yes, it’s really easy to believe scripture when you look at all of the relevant verses and not ignore what Jesus said and keep things in context.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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?

Maybe if you give provide 1 or 2 key examples each from the Book of Mormon, Bible, Pearl of Great 
Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, or General Conference, or LDS Church seminary manuals, then I 
could address it more appropriately.

Examples aren’t necessary for you to say what you believe on this matter.  Either you believe it or you don’t.

Do you believe that the apostles and prophets in Bible times were infallible?  

Do you believe they [the apostles and prophets in the Bible] never taught or believed anything that turned out to be false?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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?

I am not a member of the LDS Church. I never was. 

Not when logged in as theplains perhaps, but when logged in as TheTanakas the claim was made to being a member of the church, and that username was used as a tool for manipulating discussions on the board and posted content from identical sources as you from your webpage on these message boards.  As I have said before, the evidence speaks for itself (see post here, here, and here).

And now you’ve added GoCeltics to your list of usernames.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

My life is too busy to spend time on a message board and pretend to be different people.

We are all busy (especially me these last two plus weeks), yet somehow we still make time for the message boards.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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).

I saw from an earlier version of your reply, you had the following in 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.

I had based my reply on that inclusion, which it appears you edited it out.

What you posted in bold above came from my post on 10/20/2024, not my last post on 11/14/2024 (the one you are responding to now).  You even quoted that portion of my post in your post on 11/05/2024, so clearly, you were fully aware of that portion of my post and I did not “edited it out”, since it is still in my original post.   And, what I said there is true.  

So why do you now claim I “edited it out” when you obviously knew about it and commented on that very part of my post in your prior post?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

The Apostle Paul prophesied that "in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving 
heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils".

Yes. It's unfortunate that the same apostasy affected the LDS Church, all the way to 1978.  Many 
Latter-day Saints were lead into error by following the teachings of their leaders.

Believing or teaching some incorrect doctrines does not constitute apostasy.  I am quite certain that both you and I believe in some incorrect doctrines or interpretations of scripture, because our understanding is incomplete.  But that doesn’t mean we are in apostasy.  The same goes for the church teaching a doctrine that is false and corrected by the Lord later on.  The church did not go into apostasy, the doctrine was corrected.

As Elder Bednar said in the October 2024 General Conference:   

“Apostasy can occur at two basic levels—institutional and individual. At the institutional level, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be lost through apostasy or taken from the earth.”

“The Prophet Joseph Smith proclaimed: ‘The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing … ; the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.’”

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

For your comment about Caleb A. Shreeve, see above.  The ban was called a doctrine, several times.

Now you are twisting my comment about Caleb A. Shreeve, Sr.  Do you really need to do this?

Remember, I 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.

To which you claimed: “Those ordinations were done before Joseph Smith was supposedly corrected by God”, and you posted a link to the claim made by Shreeve.  

Then I posted the following:

“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).”

So what you said about my “comment about Caleb A. Shreeve” has nothing to do with what I actually said about Shreeve.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

The color of one's skin will also be an issue of one's spiritual purity on Judgment Day (Jacob 
3:8-9). This is taught by the LDS Church in its "Book of Mormon - Seminary - Teacher Manual".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-seminary-teacher-manual-2024/23-mosiah-29-alma-4/233-teacher?lang=eng

"Mormon prophets and modern prophets have taught it is wrong to revile or look down upon people 
because of the color of their skin (see Jacob 3:9)."  

The manual omits verse 8.  Adding it makes the LDS teaching more clear.

"O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter 
than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. Therefore, a commandment 
I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the 
darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye 
shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their 
fathers".

You have totally misconstrued what that section is teaching, as it has nothing to do with the literal color of their skin on judgement day.  The “whiteness” is a metaphor for their purity and righteousness, and not the literal color of their skin.  

As it says in context: “O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.  Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.”   (Jacob 3:8–9)

In other words the verse is saying, forget your prejudices against them because of their behavior that you associate with their “skin” color, and remember that everyone is judged according to their own deeds (not their skin color).

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

This is not in harmony with the Bible.

Actually, the white/purity metaphor is perfectly in harmony with the Bible:

Psalm 51:7:  “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.”

Daniel 11:35: “And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed."

Daniel 12:10: “Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

... 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).

What do you mean by a departure from or corruption in redefining the relationship between the 
Father and the Son?

I’m referring to the insertion of the word “homoousious” by the emperor Constantine into the Nicene Creed, which redefined how the Father and Son are “one”, making them to be one substance or one being.  This is a great departure from what was taught in Christianity prior to that time, since the early Christians taught that Jesus is “the second God” or “another God”, and that Jesus and his Father are one in unity of will.  And the “homoousious” idea can’t be found anywhere in the Bible.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

I said these scriptures are in harmony with the Holy Bible, not that they all contain the same revealed truths.

How are the LDS teachings of Heavenly Father being a man who became a God and Jesus being the 
first spirit son born of heavenly parents, who also became a God, in harmony with any LDS 
scripture?

The concepts are completely in harmony with scripture and nothing in scripture contradicts those teachings.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one God, not three Gods. I am not a polytheist.

The early Christians believed Jesus is the second God or “another God”, and that other gods exist just as the Bible teaches, and Latter-day Saints believe that other gods exist, just as the Bible teaches, and neither group is polytheist. 

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

I don't believe in the existence of Gods before or after Heavenly Father.

Neither do we.  God is an eternal being, therefore, nothing can exist “before” or “after” him.  He has existed eternally.  

Think about numbers on a number line stretching out in both directions to infinity.  What number comes before infinity?  What number comes after infinity?   It’s meaningless.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

From everlasting to everlasting is synonymous with from eternity to eternity. Some translations 
even use "everlasting life" as opposed to "eternal life" in John 3, but they mean the same thing.

Joseph Smith taught, "I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of 
a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? ... God himself was once as we 
are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! ... In order to understand 
the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is 
necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am 
going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all 
eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see ... These ideas 
are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple".

This is not consistent with any scripture.

This totally consistent with scripture, including LDS scripture.  

I already explained to you how your interpretation of “everlasting to everlasting” in the Bible is flawed, and the problem is not because of what “everlasting” means in English.  The problem is because of what the Hebrew word ‘ôlām means in Hebrew.  The Hebrew word ‘ôlām just means an indefinite period of time.  

To demonstrate this fact, notice how the Hebrew word ‘ôlām is used in this verse:  

“And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time [‘ôlām], even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.” (Joshua 24:2)

This is also why Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible translates Psalm 90:2 this way:  

“Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou art God.”

So as you can see, Latter-day Saint belief aligns with the actual text of the Bible on this issue perfectly, and you have never responded to what the biblical text actually says on this matter (you only repeat what you believe, as if that is supposed to prove something).

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.

And since you are comparing the Hebrew “everlasting to everlasting” to the Greek New Testament “eternal life” or “everlasting life” in your comment above, I should point out that those are totally different concepts in the Greek.  Going back to Psalm 90:2, the Brenton translation of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament that was used by the apostles in New Testament times) renders Psalm 90:2 this way:

“Before the mountains existed, and before the earth and the world were formed, even from age to age, Thou art.”

In the Septuagint Greek of Psalm 90:2, the Greek word translated from the Hebrew word ‘ôlām is aiṓn, and it means “an age, a cycle of time”, not “eternity”.  This is a different word than is used in verses like John 3:16 (it uses the word aiṓnion, which has a different meaning).

Furthermore, I explained to you previously how it was that Joseph Smith taught that God “became God “in relationship to us in my post on 10/30/2022 and 11/10/2022.  God the Father has always been above all others.  How he came to be our God is explained in this statement from Joseph Smith:

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

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

The LDS Church also teaches Jesus became a God too.

This is not consistent with any scripture.

This totally consistent with scripture, including LDS scripture.   See my questions to you on this topic below.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

"Like him", for exalted beings, means "they will have everything that our Heavenly Father and 
Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge" (Gospel Principles).  

We will be given the same “glory” that the God of Jesus Christ gave to Jesus in the beginning (John 17:22).  But when I said “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”, I was referring to what God himself says of his “work” and his “glory” in Moses 1:39:

“For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”

Nobody will ever be equal to God the Father in the number of souls he brings unto immortality and eternal life, and that is part of his “glory”.  The same goes for the number of his creations.  Even though we inherit all that he has, he will always be the God of all other gods.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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”.

Do you consider them "Gods in embryo"?

The 1981 version quotes Alma 12:31 as "Wherefore, he gave commandments unto men, they having first 
transgressed the first commandments as to things which were temporal, and becoming as Gods, knowing 
good from evil, placing themselves in a state to act, or being placed in a state to act according 
to their wills and pleasures, whether to do evil or to do good".

The 2013 version changes "as Gods" to "as gods".

Is there a doctrinal shift here?  

Is it now more appropriate to say "gods in embryo"?

I’m curious.  Do you just recycle things like this when you want to divert from the topic at hand?

One time you brought this topic up was in a post from you on 08/26/2020.  And as part of my response on 08/30/2020, I said the following, and I am asking the same question now:

“I’ve given you an explanation for Alma 12:31 (see here, here, and here).  If you are still not sure as to why it read differently previously, could you please at least enlighten me on how my prior explanation(s) didn’t help and why you keep bringing it up?”

You didn’t respond to this question before, so this just seems like a trolling tactic to me.  It makes me think you aren’t serious at all about these conversations.  Do you have a better explanation?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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? 

I don't believe we are the spirit children of heavenly parents.  I believe that we are children 
of Heavenly Father only in the sense that he created us.  This has nothing to do with children 
being literally born to a heavenly father and a heavenly mother (or mothers).

You didn’t directly answer my question about Hebrews 12:9, but from what you say above I gather that you believe that when Hebrews 12:7-9 talks about the chastening of a father to his sons and compares the “fathers of our flesh” to the “Father of spirits”, it is talking about literal “fathers of our flesh” on the one hand as compared to the figurative “Father of spirits” on the other hand, with the latter meaning that God created us and he is only our “Father” in a figurative sense.  Is that correct?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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?

Acts 17:28-29 does not say that we are literal offspring of heavenly parents, having the same 
nature as them.  We are offspring only in the sense of our being created by him.

My reference to Acts 17:28-29 is not to claim that we are God’s offspring (although that is certainly implied there as well).  Rather, the point here is that the Greek word that is translated as “offspring” in that verse means that we are the very same kind of being as God, same race or genus (using the taxonomic term), and this is how Paul’s Greek audience would have understood the meaning of the word.  Paul intentionally used that word for that very meaning.  To try to claim that Paul really meant that we are created by God (and not really the same kind of being) would destroy Paul’s whole argument to the men of Athens, as I’ll explain below.

I’ve discussed this with you before on 03/11/2022.   The Greek word translated as “offspring” in those verses is génos, which Thayer’s Lexicon defines as follows:

The word génos would be understood by Paul and his Greek audience in the same way the word is used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), where it is translated from the Hebrew word miyn (which means species or kind), in verses like:

Gen 1:21 (LXX): “And God made great whales, and every living reptile, which the waters brought forth according to their kinds [génos], and every creature that flies with wings according to its kind [génos], and God saw that they were good.”

Gen 1:24 (LXX):  “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature [Greek: psychen - soul] according to its kind [génos], quadrupeds and reptiles and wild beasts of the earth according to their kind [génos], and it was so.”

Gen 1:25 (LXX):  “And God made the wild beasts of the earth according to their kind [génos], and cattle according to their kind [génos], and all the reptiles of the earth according to their kind [génos], and God saw that they were good.”

For all references above, see also the interlinear LXX here.  

Or where the word génos is used in the Septuagint for a family relationship, like in this verse (this reads a little differently in the Hebrew text so I don’t know the Hebrew word it was translated from here):

Gen 19:38 (LXX) “And the younger also bore a son, and called his name Amman, saying, The son of my family [génos].  This is the father of the Ammanites to this present day.”

As you can see, there’s a family relationship or species/kind-of-being understanding built into the meaning of this word génos that goes far beyond the idea of creation alone (and that is also why our modern word “genes” is based on this Greek word).  And when Paul says we are the “kind” of being that God is, this can’t be referring to the genetics of our physical bodies, because our bodies are the offspring of our mortal parents.  Instead, this is referring to the relationship of our eternal spirits to God our Father, for our spirits came from God who is the “Father of spirits” (Heb 12:9).  And in the beginning, God created Adam’s body from the dust of the earth (the elements) and God put into him the “breath” (or spirit – same Hebrew word) of life, and he “became a living soul”.  His body came from the dust, but his spirit came from God (this is the same for all of us, not just Adam).  It is in this way that we are created in the image and likeness of God, for we not only have God’s form in likeness, but we have the image of his spirit as intelligent beings.  

When Paul taught the men of Athens about the true God in Acts 17:16-33, it was possibly one of the only places in the entire Bible where the true God is explained to outsiders (non-Jewish people), so this is a significant passage and important to our understanding of our relationship with God.

The complete context of this passage is important, comprising Acts 17:16-33.  I’ll summarize those verses here: 

Paul is addressing the Athenian pagans.  He was provoked in the spirit that the city was given over to idols (verse 16).  Then the Athenians brought him to the Areopagus (“Mars Hill” in the KJV, verse 19), where he proceeded to proclaim to them the true God in contrast to the idols that they worshiped (verses 22-31).  Paul makes the point that it is illogical to worship gods made by the hand of men. He indicates that we all have our existence, our very being, because of God. Then Paul quotes the Greek poet (Aratus), affirming that, “we are the offspring [génos] of God” (verses 28-29). 

As mentioned above, génos is the same Greek word from which we get our English word “genes”.  This word is also translated as genus in the Latin Vulgate.  So Paul is telling the Athenians that they and himself and all of us are of the very same genus as God.

This distinction is very important to Paul’s greater point because Paul goes on to say, “Therefore, since we are the offspring [génos] of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.” That is, since we are related to God (we are the same genus as he is, we are his offspring), it is illogical to even consider that God is stone, or gold, or silver, because we are not stone, or gold, or silver.

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

So here in these verses Paul is not only saying that man and God are the same category of being, but he is also saying they are the very same “kind” of being.  We are all his “offspring”.  This is vastly different from the view that Christians developed in the late 2nd century and onward.  For some reason they don’t believe what Paul taught about God and our relationship with him.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

From what I 
know of LDS theology, people are not created. They existed as eternal intelligences (gnolaum) 
before being born to heavenly parents.

People are “created”, but not out of nothing (as many modern Christians believe).  Creation out of nothing is a later doctrinal development (late 2nd century) and is not biblical.

We believe that “in the work of the Creation, the Lord organized elements that had already existed (see Abraham 3:24). He did not create the world ‘out of nothing,’ as some people believe.” (See Gospel Topics essay:  Creation).  This same concept applies to the spirit of man.  Joseph Smith taught , “The Father called all spirits before Him at the creation of man, and organized them.” 

So we fully believe that man was “created”, although we might understand the word “created” differently than the way most Christians defined it after the 3rd century AD.  The spirits of men were “organized”, and man was “created” or organized from the dust of the earth.  And from our current point of view on earth, there is a distinction between God and his creation.  Relative to our earthily existence, God is clearly the “uncreated one” and humans are the “created”.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

I believe God is of a different nature than those whom he created. So God has a different nature 
from his angels.  Humans also have a different nature than angels. Humans are also of a different 
nature from plants and animals.

That sounds like what most modern Christians believe today, yes.  But this contradicts the Bible in what Paul taught, that we are all the same kind of being as God.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

I don't believe the Nicene Creed teaches the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one being. You can 
interpret it that way if you wish. They are 3 separate personages but they are one God.

I don’t try to interpret the Nicene Creed at all.  Rather, I use non-LDS Christian sources to have them explain how they interpret it, because it would be wrong to misrepresent what other people believe and teach.

I quoted from the Got Questions website explanation of the Nicene Creed, remember?  In the article titled: What is the meaning of homoousious?, they quoted the Nicene Creed as follows:   “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.”

Do you think the Got Questions website is interpreting the creed incorrectly?

I also have several books on the Trinity to help me understand what other Christians believe about the Trinity (again, because I want to understand another person’s beliefs accurately).  For example, in the book The Forgotten Trinity, in a chapter titled "What Is the Trinity?", under the heading a "Basic Definition," the author James White writes:

"Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (The Forgotten Trinity - Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, by James R. White (1998, Bethany House Publishers), p.26, emphasis added).  Incidentally, this definition is also quoted in the Got Questions article, Should we worship Jesus?

On the next page, White paraphrases Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute, whom I often heard repeat this statement of belief on his radio show years ago (he was "The Bible Answer Man" before he converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church in 2017):

"[W]hen speaking of the Trinity, we need to realize that we are talking about one what and three who's. The one what is the Being or essence of God, the three who's are the Father, Son, and Spirit. We dare not mix up the what's and who's regarding the Trinity" (ibid, p.27)

In the book Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Robert M. Bowman, Jr, states a similar belief:

"Another aspect of God's oneness is the fact that there are no separations or divisions or partitions in God. The trinitarian doctrine holds that God is a single infinite being, transcending the bounds of space and time, having no body either material or spiritual (except the body that the Son assumed in becoming a man). Thus the trinitarian God has no parts. You cannot divide infinite being into components. The Athanasian Creed affirms that God is not divided by the three persons when it states that the trinitarian faith does not allow for "dividing the substance" (using "substance" to mean the essence or being of God). The three persons, consequently, are not three parts of God, but three personal distinctions within God, each of whom is fully God" (Why You Should Believe in the Trinity - An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., 1989 Baker Book House, pp.12-13)

In the book The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, Robert Morey also makes a similar distinction in laying out certain expectations about the Trinity with regard to the Bible:

“1. We expect to find in the Bible that there is only one, true, living, eternal Being who is God by nature and Maker of heaven and earth.
2. We expect to find in the Bible that the one true God is incomprehensible.
3. We expect to find in the Bible that the one true God exists in three Persons called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."  (The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, by Robert Morey,1996, World Bible Publishers, Inc., p.60) 

So this is a common belief among many non-LDS Christians.

Which of these definitions do you agree with, and which ones do you disagree with?

Do you believe that Trinitarians are teaching a different god and a different Christ than what Jesus and the apostles taught when Trinitarians teach that Jesus is “of one Being with the Father”?  If so, are they in apostasy?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

Humans being one in unity and one with the will of God does not make them Gods.

Of course not.  There is more to it than that.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

Joseph Smith taught Heavenly Father (Elohim of our Earth) had a father before him.  So Elohim (of 
our Earth) is not above the Father of Elohim.

Only if you interpret “father” in a heavenly context.  Joseph Smith also spoke about him as being born as a man (which requires having a father).  There are other ways that can be viewed, but we don’t have enough information about what Joseph Smith meant (or even the accuracy of the account, given that the notes were taken by hand during that sermon) to draw any solid conclusions.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

First begotten does not mean first procreated via heavenly parents.

Or it does.  You interpret it your own way, but the Bible says God the Father brought his “firstbegotten” into the world.  It means what it says.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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?

Some translations use firstborn instead of firstbegotten.  Firstborn in this case means the primacy 
(pre-eminence) of Christ. It could also mean coming into power and authority.

Begotten in the case of Christ does not mean created.  Firstborn does not always mean first born 
either. 
 
We see this in other passages too.  Firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18) and the firstborn 
of all creation (Colossians 1:15).

Remember what I said before, the context tells us what it is talking about.

You reference Colossians 1 for example.  Verse 15 says Jesus is the “firstborn of every creature”.  It goes on to say he is the creator and is “before all things, and by him all things consist”.  And then in verse 18 it says he is the “head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence”. 

In other words, he was the “firstborn of every creature” prior to creation, and he is the preeminent one put in charge of creation, and he is also the “firstborn from the dead” (i.e. he was the first to be resurrected) so that he might have preeminence in “all things”. 

We know what “firstborn from the dead” means, but what does “firstborn of every creature” mean?

Also, you did not answer my questions about whether you believe Jesus was “begotten of the Father before all worlds” as it says in the creeds. 

Was Jesus “begotten of the Father before all worlds” as the early Christians creeds teach, or not?  Or do you believe something else?

You also said, “It could also mean coming into power and authority” (regarding Jesus being the “firstbegotten”).

So, do you believe that Jesus came into power and authority?  Does that mean you also believe he became God?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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?

The concept of "another Jesus" is also found in Paul's warning (2 Corinthians 11:4). The LDS and 
JW "Jesus" fits the bill.

Or, maybe your version fits the bill?

Maybe that’s why you didn’t answer the question (again)?

Remember, we are comparing this to what Paul meant when he warned against preaching of a different Jesus than what Jesus or the apostles taught (not compared to what you personally believe).

I asked you what is the difference between the Jehovah’s Witnesses using scripture to support their views about Jesus, and the later Christian concept of a “homoousious” Father and Son which has no support from scripture at all? 

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 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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 ... 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”.

I am not a Trinitarian.  The Father and the Son are not "one being".

How do you define “Trinitarian”?  I define that as a person who believes in the doctrine of the Trinity.

If you define it the same way, then that’s an interesting change for you (and I get why, for biblical reasons).  When did you stop considering yourself to be a Trinitarian?  In your posts on 08/01/2020, 08/26/2020, 09/05/2020, 09/11/2020 and 11/02/2020, you seemed to be affirming and defending the doctrine of the Trinity.  Why the change?

Do you believe that the three persons of the Godhead are each Gods, but are one God in unity like the Bible teaches and the early (pre-Nicene) Christians and the Latter-day Saints believe?  Or do you believe something else?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

A lot of people and false prophets have come up with teachings which have no scriptural basis 
and have deceived their followers.

I think that is true for the doctrine of a “homoousious” Father and Son as found in the Nicene creed (and other creeds), since it has absolutely no basis in scripture.  And unfortunately, that doctrine is at the core of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is believed by millions of modern Christians.

The Bible tells us to beware of false prophets, but that also means there will be true prophets of God.  Jesus said that he would be sending more prophets and people would reject them the same as with past prophets (Matthew 23:34-35).   And when God calls prophets, he directs them by revelation the same as he has always done and reveals teachings about himself, some of which may not have been made known as clearly in prior revelations (scripture).  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).  

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

I'm not referring to this.

You were referring to this in the quote from you that I was responding to.  In your post on 11/05/2024, you said, “I provided some LDS teachings which show Heavenly Father and Jesus became (were formed into) Gods.”   You were talking about God the Father and Jesus being “formed into” Gods.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

I am referring to a person, who not a God now, believes he can be 
formed (through progression) into a God someday.

The same is taught about the LDS Jesus in his pre-mortal life.  He "attained that pinnacle of 
intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent 
state." (Religion 430-431 – Doctrines of Gospel Student Manual, chapter 4).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32501_eng.pdf

That sounds exactly like what the early Christian Father Origen (185-254 AD) taught in his Commentary on John 1:1:

“As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so "the Logos" is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty.”  CHURCH FATHERS: Commentary on John, Book II (Origen)

So it sounds like this was a teaching that the early Christians believed as well.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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?

Eternal life, as defined by the LDS Church, does not mean becoming a God and living life as a God.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/true-to-the-faith/eternal-life?lang=eng

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the 
world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but 
have everlasting life" (John 3:14-16).

Eternal life in the context of what Jesus said is to be eternally with him, even if we die. Those 
who perish are those who will not reside with Christ.

Only God has existed as God from eternity to all eternity. His life is eternal.  Joseph Smith 
taught that God (Elohim of our Earth) has not existed as God from all eternity. He and his wife 
(wives) became Gods by following the Plan of Salvation of their God.

People can receive the gift of eternal life through faith in Christ but we have not existed 
eternally in the past.  LDS theology has people in progressing in various stages (uncreated, 
eternal intelligences, then being formed into spirit children, then becoming mortal children, 
then being formed into Gods).

"The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself" (Journal of Discourses 
3:93).  In short, Gods are formed.

https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/pdf/JoD03/JoD03.pdf

Again, you didn’t answer the question and are trying to deflect into another rabbit hole.

In your post on 11/05/2024 you said:

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.

I was asking about the logic of what you said above.  I asked before, and I ask again:

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?   <-  THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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?

Jesus has always existed as God.

Where does scripture say Jesus always existed as God?

Also:

Why does Acts 2:36 say that God “made” Jesus “both Lord and Christ”?  Was he not “both Lord and Christ” before the God and Father of Jesus Christ “made” him that way?

Why does Matthew 28:18 have Jesus saying that “all power is given to me in heaven and earth”?  Did he not have that power before?

Why does Jesus in John 17:22 pray for his disciples by saying, “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them”?  In John 17:5 it says Jesus had this glory with the Father “before the world was”.  When did the God and Father of Jesus Christ give that “glory” to Jesus?  (It had to be “before the world was” according to John 17:5 and 24). Did Jesus not have that glory before his God and Father gave it to him?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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.”

Are any of these "gods" worshipped by anyone?

It doesn’t say in that passage.  But elsewhere the book of Revelation says for those who “overcome”, Jesus will cause them to be worshipped by other humans (Revelation 3:8-9, see also Isaiah 49:23 and 60:14).  These overcomers are also those who sit with the God of Jesus Christ and with Jesus Christ on God’s throne (Revelation 3:21).  So according to what Jesus says about others who become like God in the Bible, they are worshipped.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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?

"Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy 
works" (Psalm 86:8).

"Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful 
in praises, doing wonders?" (Exodus 15:11).

This is a comparison of the true God (the LORD) with all other gods who are believed to be true 
deities by those who worship them.

So, according to your reasoning, Psalm 86:8 would be, “Among the fictional gods (that some people believe are real) there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works"?  Is that right?

And Exodus 15:11 would be, "Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the fictional gods (that some people believe are real)? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?"

Isn’t that the same as comparing God to Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny?  How does comparing him to fictional characters that some people believe exist show praise to God about his greatness?

And wouldn’t doing that promote the legitimacy of those false gods?  Think about that for a moment.  Let’s assume you believe Zeus and Hermes are true deities (these false gods are mentioned in Acts 14:12). And you hear Psalm 86:8 quoted to you, and you imagine it to be saying, “Among Zeus and Hermes there is none like the LORD [YHWH], neither are there any works like unto the LORD’s works.”  Doesn’t that just legitimize the reality of Zeus and Hermes by saying that?   “Oh yeah” (you might think), “Zeus and Hermes are good gods, but YHWH sounds more powerful!”.

Or even with the statement from Deuteronomy 17:10 saying God is “the God of gods”.  With that same line of reasoning you might think, “Yes, he’s the God of Zeus and Hermes, so Zeus and Hermes are real and it’s still fine if I believe in them and worship them too”.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

"And Jethro said, Blessed be the LORD, who hath delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, 
and out of the hand of Pharaoh, who hath delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. 
Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he 
was above them" (Exodus 18:19-11).

These gods of Egypt, believed to be real and true gods by the Egyptians, were actually false.  So 
the LORD is above all gods that are believed to be true by the people.  

God executed judgement against those whom the Egyptians believed to be true gods and whom they 
worshipped (Exodus 12:12; Numbers 33:4).

You realize there’s one huge difference between the verses you quoted from Exodus 18:10-11, and what is said in Psalm 86:8 or Exodus 15:11, right?  Exodus 18:10-11 is quoting Jethro, a Kenite shepherd, from his point of view, while Exodus 15:11 is a part of a God inspired song of Moses, and Psalm 86:8 is part of the song of David.

Why would Moses, a prophet of God, give credence to false gods by comparing them to the God of Israel in Exodus 15:11?

There’s a lot more that could be said about these verses and the ancient Israel point of view on the gods of the nations and the idea of elohim ruling the nations under God’s authority, but there are many books and papers written on that topic by biblical scholars, and I’ll just say there is way more to this than can be explained here.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

I believe the gods of Psalm 82 is a reference to corrupt human judges, regarded as children of 
the most high God. He is judging among the gods (among the Israelite judges who were regarded as 
gods, as Moses was),

You’ve stated your belief on Psalm 82 many times, and I explained several times why interpreting the “gods” in that chapter as human judges doesn’t work in the context. 

First, Psalm 82 states that the gods were being condemned as corrupt in their administration of the nations of the earth. The Bible nowhere teaches that God appointed a council of Jewish elders to rule over foreign nations.  The opposite is true, they were to be separate from other nations.

Second, as I stated previously, the punishment given to these “gods” to “die like men”, and that makes absolutely no sense if they are already men.  It’s nonsense.

Third, and most importantly, the idea that this divine council consists of human judges contradicts the other verses I brought up, like Psalm 89:5-7, which speaks of these gods in a heavenly council. 

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

They are denounced for committing various sins (judging unjusting, accepting wicked persons, not 
defending the poor, fatherless, needy, etc).

"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge 
unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice 
to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. 
They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the 
earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 
But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for 
thou shalt inherit all nations".

If you believe these are gods who are being worshipped in some other realm, then God (Elohim) is 
revealing evil deities.

They aren’t being worshipped in some other realm (I don't believe that), and yes, they are being chastised for being deficient in their duties.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

There is no disrespecting of God when you understand it that way.

The disrespect comes from other verses (not Psalm 82), where you have God being compared in his works to corrupt human judges or false gods, or where it is said that God is the God of false gods, fictional deities.  There is no praise or honor in such comparisons.

The human judges interpretation of Psalm 82 has its own serious problems (as stated above and many times elsewhere, like in these posts on 07/18/2023 and 08/03/2023).

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

You really need to read the Got Questions website article titled:  What is the divine council?

The article begins with "Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings?".

In the LDS pantheon of Gods (heavenly beings), many Gods are alike although not exactly alike, 
with Elohim.

So do you agree with the Got Questions website article, What is the divine council?, that the divine council is a pantheon of heavenly beings?  That’s exactly how Michael Heiser described it in his book, The Unseen Realm.  He wrote, “The God of the Old Testament was part of an assembly—a pantheon—of other gods.” (p. 11).  That’s the same book that is recommended by the Got Questions website on that topic (at the bottom of that webpage article).

Another question comes to mind.  Remember what I said last time?  The Bible teaches we will become “like him” (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)

Do you agree with John’s teaching that “we shall be like him”?   If you agree with John, how do you see that fitting with Psalm 89:5-7 as quoted at the beginning of that Got Questions article?

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

“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.”

What do you mean by supernatural beings?  Deities, angels, or something else?  Are any of these 
"gods" worshipped by anyone, anywhere?

I was quoting from the Got Questions website, and I was stating their point of view on that topic.  So, you should ask them what they mean by “supernatural beings”.  Or, read the book they recommended on the topic (The Unseen Realm).

In plain Bible language they are elohim, meaning they are gods.  I don’t know why people want to try to change what the Bible says all the time.  i.e. “No, they can’t be elohim, they’re angels or judges or false gods, but they can’t be real gods!” (Even though that’s what the text says!)

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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).

Do you believe God (Elohim of our Earth) is above/greater than his Father God?

I think your question presupposes a particular interpretation of what people wrote down for what Joseph Smith said that may not be the only way to understand what he said.

Doctrine and Covenants 121:32 and Abraham 3:17-19 are definitive in teaching that God the Father is the God of all other gods.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

Same question as above.  Do you believe God (Elohim of our Earth) is above/greater than his Father 
God or his Grandfather God?

Above you were responding to my explanation about why Paul would be contradicting himself if he was referring to idols instead of real gods that exist in reality in 1 Corinthians 8:5 (since Paul repeatedly denied that idols are gods at all), and you are trying to change the subject to the question you are asking above.  Does that mean you see why Paul would be contradicting himself if he meant false gods when he said there are “lords many, and gods many” in 1 Corinthians 8:5?

As for your question above, see my response above.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

Another revelation soon confirmed that "the saints shall be filled with his glory, and receive 
their inheritance and be made equal with him."

This links to Doctrine and Covenants 88:107 ("And then shall the angels be crowned with the glory 
of his might, and the saints shall be filled with his glory, and receive their inheritance and be 
made equal with him").

Yes, all that is biblical.  God gives his glory to the true followers of Christ, even the same glory that Jesus had with the Father in the beginning (John 17:20-23).  And sitting with God in his throne in the same way Jesus is sitting with God in his throne is being made equal to him (sitting side by side with him in his throne).  God gives them all power, all his glory, and all that he has (they will “inherit all things”). 

But as I said above, being “equal” to him in his position on his throne and in power and in receiving all that he has, does not mean that they become equal in all of his accomplishments in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, or in the number of his creations.

On 11/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, theplains said:

On 11/14/2024 at 11:24 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

The LDS doctrines of Heavenly Father being a man and then becoming a God and Jesus (the spirit 
brother of an angel called Lucifer) being the first spirit child born of heavenly parents, who 
also became a God, are not in harmony with any LDS scripture. 

Maybe you can tell me how you believe some woman had her sins forgiven and then went on to becoming 
a Goddess and Heavenly Mother of our Earth is in harmony with scripture.

Or maybe you can tell me how the Holy Spirit also being a child of heavenly parents is in harmony 
with scripture.

Or maybe you can tell me how any of those things are not in harmony with scripture?   

I would never try to support some of the speculation on scripture (if it’s not revealed in scripture then it is someone’s interpretation or speculation), but the revealed doctrines are in harmony with the Bible. 

I think you may be also confusing what it means to be “in harmony” with the idea that everything must be found therein.  “Harmony” means that it is consistent with revealed scripture and doesn’t contradict it and may even enhances it.

In music, harmony is achieved when there are two or more notes that compliment the other notes being played, producing chords or a progression of tones that enhance each other.  The other notes aren't playing the same exact notes, rather they are complimentary to one another.

Some Christians talk about the “harmony of the four gospels”, but does that mean every detail and every teaching that we find in the gospel of Luke is also found in the gospel of Matthew?  No.  That was made clear when trying to compare President Nelson’s talk about the experience of Peter, James, and John on the mount of Transfiguration as derived from the gospel of Luke with the portrayal of the same event as provided in Matthew’s gospel.   There are differences between them.  But do they contradict each other?  Or are they in harmony?

The same goes for the revealed doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  They are in harmony with the doctrines and teachings of the Bible.  But that doesn’t mean every single detail is found therein.  Our doctrines come from God.  And there are a lot more things that God would like to reveal to us if we would just get on with embracing and acting upon what he has already given us.

Edited December 15, 2024 by InCognitus
Fixed hyperlink reference

[theplains]

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

keep in mind the way that the Lord gathered his people the first time (at the Exodus out of Egypt and gathering at the temple of Mount Sinai to make covenants) prior to them being led into the lands promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  And now we are experiencing when “the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people”.  There is no reason to expect that the gathering the second time would follow a different pattern than the first time.

I agree in the Lord gathering the remnant of his people.  But like the first time, the second 
time is referring to literal Israelites. That is the context of Isaiah 11.  It is not 
specifically a reference to Gentiles who join the church or who are declared to be in the 
literal lineage of Israel through a patriarchal blessing. In the Old Testament, "his people", 
the "covenant people", are Israelites. This is whom Isaiah is referring to.  Likewise in 
Isaiah 2. Isaiah is not referring to Salt Lake City in Utah like the LDS Church teaches.

Gentiles would eventually be considered as "my [God's] people" (Isaiah 11:10; Zechariah 
2:10–12).

"And there shall be an highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from 
Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt" 
(Isaiah 11:16). 

I don't believe there was any gathering of the remnant of his people (literal Israelites) 
beginning around 1830.  But maybe you believe this occurred around the time the Saints began 
preaching to the Native American Indians [the Lamanites] (D&C 28:8–9,14;  30:6;  32:2;  54:8).

I think the greatest gathering of "his [God's] people" may occur with the advent of the 
144,000 of the Book of Revelation.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

The point is that Christians still revered the temple as a sacred place for the things of God even after the coming of Christ.  It was not something that they discarded as no longer relevant as you insinuated; they continued “daily with one accord in the temple”, it was still important to them.

Yes. They gathered to the temple for prayer, worship, and fellowship to name a few. 

Do you believe Paul set an example for Christians to perform all the abstinence entailed 
by the Nazarite vow (like bringing a lamb for a trespass offering – Numbers 6:12), followed
by shaving his head or was this an isolated incident?
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

You never did ask me what ordinances I believe they were performing in the temple.  I don’t believe they were performing any ordinances in the Jewish temple at Jerusalem.  That does not mean they did not perform those ordinances elsewhere, because it is obvious that they did.

What temple ordinances do you believe they were performing elsewhere but not in the temple at 
Jerusalem?
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

That happens to those in the future in the celestial kingdom, yes.  But currently only men are ordained to priesthood offices in this life.

From what I see, females will only be considered priestesses in the highest section of the 
celestial kingdom.  It will not occur in the two lower divisions.  The reference is to being 
priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek (Doctrine and Covenants 76:52–58).  
They had overcome by faith and are now called gods.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

In response to the above, I asked you, “Where does the New Testament say that?”  Meaning, where does it say, “no temple ordinances were required for Gentile and Israelite Christians”?   (It doesn’t).

I mentioned in my last post.

In the context of temple–related practices, Acts 15 details the council at Jerusalem, where 
early church leaders, including Paul, discussed what would be required of Gentile converts. 
They decided that Gentiles did not need to fully adhere to the Law of Moses, which included 
many temple–related ordinances, but should:

Abstain from food sacrificed to idols.
Abstain from blood.
Avoid consuming things strangled.
Avoid fornication.

If you still believe temple ordinances were required by Gentiles but they were performing 
these elsewhere as you hinted at earlier, then please identify them.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

You forgot about Revelation 3:12, where Jesus says that those who overcome are made to be a “pillar in in the temple of my God” and they will “go no more out”.  A person who is a “pillar” is regarded as reliable or essential to the support of something.  For example, Peter, James, and John were considered to be “pillars” in the church (Galatians 2:9), and the church itself was called “the pillar and ground of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)

The pillars in Revelation 3:12 are both men and women who overcame.  These are those who 
are with Christ in his kingdom (3:21).
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

 So Revelation 3:12 is confirmation of the continued importance of the temple and those who serve in it as it pertains to New Testament Christianity.

"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more 
out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which 
is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my 
new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches". 

This is about the one temple in heaven, not the temple in Jerusalem or LDS temples on earth. 
Christian men and women were not serving as priests in the temple in Jerusalem.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

The city of New Jerusalem comes down from heaven after the Millennium (compare Revelation 20 to 21).  It is only then that the lack of a temple in that city is noteworthy.  Why would that be so noteworthy if there is no temple in the Millennium as you imagine?

There is no mention of a temple existing in the city of New Jerusalem before or after it 
comes down from heaven.

Maybe you are associating a temple with a city with the future temple in the future city of 
New Jerusalem that Latter–day Saints will supposedly build in Missouri preparatory to the 
Second Coming.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

So if temples no longer serve any purpose in Christianity and you no longer “build temples because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost” (as you suppose), then why does the biblical text go out of its way to point out the fact that the city of new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven after the earth is celestialized has no temple in it?  (Revelation 21:22).  Why is that even noteworthy if temples were done away since the time of Christ as you seem to think?

The Book of Revelation is referring to the temple in heaven, not in the city of New Jerusalem 
that comes down from heaven, nor the temple in Jerusalem on earth. Christian men and women did 
not serve as Melchizedek or Levitical priests in the Jerusalem temple before it was destroyed.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

The Lord doesn’t distinguish between “spiritual Israel” (as you call it) and the remnant of the house of Joseph.  Joseph was to become a “multitude of Gentiles” (nations) as the scripture says, and it is to that promise from God that the inheritance is given.

Yes. Scripture says Joseph received a double portion, but no priesthood (Ezekiel 47:13–14,21; 
48:29).
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

You forget that “their prophets” (in a major part of the Bible) were prophets pertaining only to Judea, not the northern tribes.  So “their prophets” would have no concern about Ephraim and Manasseh and any inheritance of theirs in the Americas.  “Their prophets” had their hands full with problems of their own in their part of the world.

But the prophets pertaining to the northern tribes were disbursed throughout the world, and their writings aren’t contained in the Bible.  And God doesn’t forget his people.

The northern kingdom of Israel had its share of prophets who delivered messages from the 
Lord. These include Elijah, Elisha, Amos, Hosea, and Jonah (2 Kings 14:25).
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

And the initial prophecies about the land of Canaan as promised to Abraham and his seed still symbolizes the initial covenant made with Abraham.

Right.  And nothing in the LDS scripture clearly identifies the land of America in this 
covenant.  It is just speculation, all based on Joseph Smith's claim in finding golden 
plates buried in New York State.  That is why the LDS Church cannot geographically identify 
any location in the Book of Mormon narrative, excluding mentioned locations of the Old World, 
as being situated in America.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Who are the “seed of Abraham” or “children of Abraham” according to the Bible?

The seed of Abraham has two aspects: literal and spiritual.  Literal descendants (physical; 
see qualifier below) and the faithful in Christ (Galatians 3:29, ESV, "And if you are Christ's, 
then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise").
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

 God told Abraham, “Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:  For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.  And 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 13:14–16)

Who do you think God had in mind when he said to Abraham that “thy seed” shall inherit that land forever, and also “thy seed” shall be numbered as the dust of the earth?

This is a reference to literal seed inheriting the land.  That inheritance was conditional 
as post–Abrahamic scripture informs us.

Abraham, with another wife named Keturah, had six additional children besides Isaac and 
Ishmael (Genesis 25:1–2).  The reckoning of seed was through Isaac (Genesis 21:12; Hebrews 
11:18).
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Jacob 5:21, 23, and 25 refers back to verses 8 and 13-14, where the Lord (Jesus) of the vineyard (the world) cut off branches from the tame olive tree (Israel) and “hid the natural branches of the tame olive tree in the nethermost part of the vineyard”.  They represent unnamed tribes of scattered Israel to various parts of the world, in all different conditions, and the Lord goes to visit them (Jesus was sent only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”). 

Verse 43 likely refers to the Nephites and Lamanites in their fallen and apostate condition.

When I read Jacob 5, there are only 3 scattered branches.  First: Jacob 5:21, to the poorest 
of the entire vineyard. Second: Jacob 5:23, to a place even poorer than the first, really 
making the second the poorest of the vineyard. Third: Jacob 5:25, a good land, later described 
as choice land above all other lands in the vineyard (5:43).

How are the Nephites and Lamanites viewed as the last scattered branch prior to the destruction 
of Jerusalem?
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

The Jaredites, for one.

According to the Book of Mormon narrative, the Jaredite nation is utterly destroyed – only 
Coriantumr survived. There is no indication the Nephites met or knew of any other living 
indigenous people groups.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

I clearly said “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 [i.e. “the saved”] that lived and died from the beginning of creation.”  

The 8 billion people I calculated are for “the saved” who inherit the celestial kingdom and inherit the earth, and that number is very conservative given that on average that 27% of newborn babies died in their first year of life (prior to modern times), and little children are heirs of the celestial kingdom.

How many do you calculate for those on our Earth who inherit a telestial or terrestrial 
glory?  Where do you believe they go?
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

As for the seed of Abraham, in the book of Ecclesiasticus (in the Apocrypha), it is says of Abraham: “Abraham was a great father of many people: in glory was there none like unto him; who kept the law of the most High, and was in covenant with him: he established the covenant in his flesh; and when he was proved, he was found faithful. Therefore he assured him by an oath, that he would bless the nations in his seed, and that he would multiply him as the dust of the earth, and exalt his seed as the stars, and cause them to inherit from sea to sea, and from the river unto the utmost part of the land.”  (Ecclesiasticus 44:19–21)

His seed through Isaac or through all the sons Abraham had?
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

But we do know that Jesus couldn’t have possibly taught them to go to the Gentiles during that forty-day period, or otherwise 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?

Don’t you think that at least one of the eleven apostles would have remembered that Jesus said “Go to all the world – meaning the Gentiles”?  Obviously he couldn’t have possibly meant for them to do that until Acts 10.

We don't know all of what Jesus taught in that forty–day period.

"Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15) does not 
mean "Only go to the Gentiles".  "To the whole creation" means "all people".

The apostles and disciples, due to their religious upbringing, may have still felt salvation 
was only for the Jews even though Jesus had told them to go to the entire world.  Jesus did 
not specifically say to go into all the world but initially exclude the Gentiles.  The "great 
commission" started on a larger scale after persecution arose and scattered the disciples.

"Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord 
Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?  When they heard these things, they 
held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted 
repentance unto life".

They did not come to realize that now was the time to start preaching to the Gentiles. They 
came to realize that Gentiles too would be included in the New Covenant. It was a similar 
pattern in the Old Testament. God only dealt with the Israelite nation by giving them the 
Mosaic Law but Gentiles living within her borders could still benefit from salvation by 
adhering to it. The temple, for instance, even had a dedicated court for the Gentiles. 

The blessing to Gentiles had already been prophesied in the Old Testament.

"I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep 
thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6);

"And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes 
of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the 
Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth" (Isaiah 49:6).

It foretells that Christ's mission will extend to the Gentiles, bringing salvation to them 
as well.

Isaiah 56:6–8 speaks of the sons of the stranger (the Gentiles) who join themselves to the 
Lord, serving Him, loving His name, and keeping the Sabbath, indicating they will be accepted 
and become part of His people.

As for Paul, Christ had already appeared to him and chose him to bear His name to the Gentiles 
(Acts 9:15).  Paul knew to go to the Gentiles before Peter knew not to view the Gentiles as 
unclean.

Then we have Philip. He was already preaching to the Samaritans (a mixture of both Israelites 
and Gentiles) before Christ's appearance to Paul (Acts 8:5–12) and before Peter's vision.

"But the voice answered a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, do not call 
common".

The cleansing is tied to Christ's atoning work, which made salvation and the blessings of 
the gospel accessible to all people, not just the Jews.   The blessings of the gospel were 
prophesied long before Peter was born. I provided several examples from Isaiah above.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

They wouldn’t have understood that he meant the Gentiles because clearly that’s not what Jesus meant, since the Gentiles would not “hear [his] voice” and Jesus did not “bring” them personally, because Jesus clearly said that he was only sent “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”.

If I'm not mistaken, you believe the "other sheep" of John 10:16 are the Nephites, based on 
3 Nephi 15:21 ("And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: 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").

But the disciples in Judea wouldn't have understood what Jesus meant because they were not 
aware of the Nephites.

The truth is clearer if you believe the biblical explanation. In the course of their life, 
they are made aware of the Gentiles being these other sheep, with Christ as the Shepherd of 
the sheepfold – the Gentiles being the ones afar off and the Jews being the ones who were 
nigh (Ephesians 2:17).

"For he [Christ] is our peace, who hath made both [Israelites and Gentiles] one [one fold], 
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 [Israelites and Gentiles] 
both unto God in one body [one fold] by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And 
[Jesus] came and preached peace to you [the Gentiles] which were afar off, and to them that 
were nigh" (2:14–17).

While 1 Nephi 22:25 and Alma 5:38–39 refer to Christ as the Shepherd, the Gentiles are not 
symbolized as sheep in the imagery of the sheepfold in the Book of Mormon.

Ephesians 2:17 mentions that Jesus "came and preached peace to you which were afar off [the 
Gentiles], and to them that were nigh" [the Israelites]. This reflects the spiritual outreach 
and message of peace that Jesus brought, transcending cultural and ethnic boundaries. 

While Jesus primarily taught among the Jewish people, his interactions with individuals like 
the Roman centurion and the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15), as well as his teaching sessions 
like those with the Samaritan woman showed that his message was for everyone, regardless of 
their ethnic or religious background.

Jesus' sacrificial atonement was a unifying act meant for all humanity. By fulfilling and 
superseding the Mosaic Law, he made it possible for both Jews and Gentiles to be reconciled 
with God through faith in him.

After the resurrection, Jesus instructed his disciples to spread the gospel to all nations.  
Jesus does not specifically put a time clock on excluding Gentiles. The apostles, empowered 
by the Holy Spirit, began preaching to the Gentiles in their local vicinity, thereby 
fulfilling Jesus' mission of peace to those "afar off."

Ephesians 2 speaks to the broad and inclusive reach of Jesus' mission, which directly and 
indirectly brought the message of peace and reconciliation to the Gentiles through his life, 
teachings, atonement, and the subsequent actions of His apostles.

Despite Jesus saying he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel, the Gentiles living in 
Judea during his mortal ministry were aware of his teachings through open–air sermons and 
word–of–mouth.  It's not as if Jesus was operating in an "only–Jewish–audience" bubble.  

Cornelius already knew certain things about Christ before Peter visited him. This is evident 
in these verses:

"You yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the 
baptism that John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and 
with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for 
God was with him".

Peter was sent to explain the gospel more fully to Cornelius.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

The Gentiles were not adopted into the fold until later and Jesus did not go to them personally (he sent his apostles to do that).

1 Nephi 22:25 and Alma 5:38–39 refer to Christ as the Shepherd, but the Gentiles are not 
symbolized as sheep in the imagery of the sheepfold in the Book of Mormon.  Other than the 
sole Jaredite survivor Coriantumr, there are no Gentiles mentioned in the Book of Mormon 
for the Nephites to preach to.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

But opinions are different from what God has revealed to us in his scripture: John 10:16-24 vs 3 Nephi 15:16 - 16:3

Yes. I agree on the difference of interpretation.  I addressed it more fully earlier.

Another could be John 21:20–23.

"Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had 
leaned back against him during the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to 
betray you? When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?" Jesus said 
to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!"  
So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus 
did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I 
come, what is that to you?"

Doctrine and Covenants 7 adds a little twist to this account.  John, being the only Apostle 
to make such a request, asks Jesus that he [John] remain on alive on earth so he could reach 
souls for Christ.  The Mormon Jesus grants this request.

Needless to say, we have no evidence of John prophesying "before nations, kindreds, tongues 
and people" before or after the advent of Joseph Smith.

A similar thing is said of three special Nephites in 3 Nephi 28. These disciples were granted 
the wish to remain on the earth until Christ's Second Coming, similar to John.  There is no 
evidence for their missionary work either.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Afterwards he did not go to the Gentiles, he sent his apostles.  The Gentiles did not “hear his voice”, they heard the message through his apostles.  This is among the many reasons your interpretation of John 10:16 doesn’t work.

While Christ did not specifically go to Gentile nations in his mortal ministry, I provided 
examples of Gentiles who heard Christ's voice during that ministry.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe that the apostles and prophets in Bible times were infallible?  

Do you believe they [the apostles and prophets in the Bible] never taught or believed anything that turned out to be false?

Yes. They made mistakes.  But I recall only the prophet Aaron leading the Israelites to 
worship the golden calf for a brief moment.  Peter, on the other hand, revealed his hypocrisy 
on the matter of eating food and was rebuked by Paul.

Maybe you can provide a few more examples from the Bible, or LDS canon, or apply the same 
standard to LDS apostles and prophets where you believe they led the Latter–day Saints 
astray.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Believing or teaching some incorrect doctrines does not constitute apostasy.  I am quite certain that both you and I believe in some incorrect doctrines or interpretations of scripture, because our understanding is incomplete.  But that doesn’t mean we are in apostasy.  The same goes for the church teaching a doctrine that is false and corrected by the Lord later on.  The church did not go into apostasy, the doctrine was corrected.

People who believe in false teachings remain in apostasy until they switch to believing in 
true teachings.

Take Jehovah's Witnesses for example.  They continue to teach that Jesus is Michael the 
Archangel. Jesus is not God.  The Holy Spirit is not a personage in the Godhead. It is an 
impersonal force like electricity. In their case, they are in apostasy. They will remain in 
apostasy until they move to accurate doctrine. And obviously, there are different severities 
of apostasy.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

As Elder Bednar said in the October 2024 General Conference:   

“Apostasy can occur at two basic levels—institutional and individual. At the institutional level, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be lost through apostasy or taken from the earth.”

It seems you are focusing on either the church of Christ being lost or a person choosing to 
leave the Christian faith.   

I am not referring to a total institutional apostasy where all teachings are false or where 
the church of Christ is either destroyed (like the 1997 Gospel Principles taught) or taken 
from the earth. The church of Christ cannot be destroyed.  I am referring to "some" 
institutional apostasy caused by false teachings, which indirectly lead to "some" individual 
apostasy when these false teachings are taught and believed.

For example, many Israelites descended into apostasy when they began worshipping the false 
pagan gods instead of Jehovah.

I also believe people descend into apostasy when they are led to worship a God who they are 
taught was once a man who was married to at least one wife, who then progressed into becoming 
a God of our Earth.  People have the freedom to choose to reject this teaching and to worship 
the God who has always been God. This is what I mean by "Eternal God".  

The LDS teaching/doctrine that Jesus was once an eternal, uncreated intelligence, who then 
became the first spirit child of heavenly parents, who then became a God before coming to 
Earth is not "God who has always been God".  The true God, unlike Joseph Smith's teaching 
about Heavenly Father, is God from eternity to all eternity. He is God from everlasting to 
everlasting.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

“The Prophet Joseph Smith proclaimed: ‘The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing … ; the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.’”

Joseph Smith also proclaimed ...

"I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of being God is. 
What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the 
earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God 
in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder
heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds 
this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make 
himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like 
yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the 
very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked 
and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another".

"In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the 
loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God 
and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined 
and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the 
veil, so that you may see. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple ..."

https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf

The newly amalgamated text words it a little differently.

"What kind of a being was God in the beginning, before the world was? I will go back to the 
beginning to show you. I will tell you, so open your ears and eyes, all ye ends of the earth, 
and hear, for I am going to prove it to you with the Bible. I am going to tell you the designs 
of God for the human race, the relation the human family sustains with God, and why He 
interferes with the affairs of man. 

First, God himself who sits enthroned in yonder heavens is a man like unto one of yourselves – 
that is the great secret! If the veil were rent today and the great God that holds this world 
in its sphere and the planets in their orbit and who upholds all things by His power – if you 
were to see Him today, you would see him in all the person, image, fashion, and very form of 
a man, like yourselves. For Adam was a man formed in His likeness and created in the very 
fashion and image of God. Adam received instruction, walked, talked, and conversed with Him 
as one man talks and communicates with another.

"In order to understand the subject of the dead and to speak for the consolation of those 
who mourn for the loss of their friends it is necessary to understand the character and 
being of God for I am going to tell you how God came to be God and what sort of a being he 
is for we have imagined that God was God from the beginning of all eternity. I will refute 
that idea and take away the veil so you may see truth is the touchstone these things are 
incomprehensible to some but they are simple the first principle of truth and of the gospel 
is to know for a certainty the character of God and that we may converse with him the same 
as one man with another and that he once was a man like one of us and that God himself the 
father of us all once dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did in the flesh 
and like us".

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol18/iss2/7/
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1894&context=byusq

Some key teachings of Joseph Smith were removed here.  One: that Heavenly Father is an exalted 
man. Two: That God (Heavenly Father) is not God from all eternity.

Another section was also removed from the amalgamated version.

"When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until 
you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you must begin with 
the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a 
great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. 
It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation 
and exaltation even beyond the grave.  This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. It is 
the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. ... He was 
once a man like us; ... God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as 
Jesus Christ himself did".

Sources:

https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf
https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf

It was changed to:

"It is plain beyond comprehension and you thus learn that these are some of the first 
principles of the Gospel, about which so much has been said. When you climb a ladder, you 
must begin at the bottom rung. You have got to find the beginning of the history and go on 
until you have learned the last principle of the Gospel. It will be a great while after the 
grave before you learn to understand the last, for it is a great thing to learn salvation 
beyond the grave and it is not all to be comprehended in this world".

Again, they mask the teaching that the LDS Heavenly Father became God.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Now you are twisting my comment about Caleb A. Shreeve, Sr.  Do you really need to do this?

Remember, I 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.

To which you claimed: “Those ordinations were done before Joseph Smith was supposedly corrected by God”, and you posted a link to the claim made by Shreeve.  

Then I posted the following:

“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).”

So what you said about my “comment about Caleb A. Shreeve” has nothing to do with what I actually said about Shreeve.

We have a few options here about the priesthood ban.

1] It originated solely in Mormonism and taught to be a true doctrine from God. A revelation 
(declaration) was required to reverse the ban.
2] It was based on a false interpretation of scripture.
3] It originated from non–Mormon roots and the LDS leadership incorporated an apostate 
doctrine into its theology.

Option 1 means the LDS Church was leading their members truthfully in that respect.

Either option 2 or 3 means the LDS Church was leading their members astray.

The Improvement Era, and other LDS sources, do not admit that the false doctrine of the 
Protestants was also accepted as true doctrine into the LDS Church.  They teach that the 
doctrine (taught and believed as truth) originated with Joseph Smith.

"It is true that the negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always 
been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him, 
although we know of no such statement in any revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book 
of Mormon, or the Bible. However, in the Pearl of Great Price, we find the following 
statement written by Abraham: ‘Now this first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, 
the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government 
of Ham, which was patriarchal. Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and 
judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order 
established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal 
reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the 
blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to 
the Priesthood" (April 1924 Improvement Era).

https://archive.org/details/improvementera2706unse

It is also discussed in chapters 15 and 16 of the Way to Perfection (written by a former LDS 
President).

"This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet 
Joseph Smith. At a meeting of the general authorities of the Church, held August 22, 1895, 
the question of the status of the negro in relation to the Priesthood was asked and the 
minutes of that meeting say: ‘President George Q. Cannon remarked that the Prophet taught 
this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the 
offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence 
over Cain's offspring" (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 110. See also Milton
R. Hunter's Pearl of Great Price Commentary, 1948, pp. 141–142).

https://archive.org/details/waytoperfections00smit

If you want additional teachings from LDS leaders about this, the Mormon Research Ministry 
documented it.

https://www.mrm.org/quotes–on–blacks–priesthood
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

You have totally misconstrued what that section is teaching, as it has nothing to do with the literal color of their skin on judgement day.  The “whiteness” is a metaphor for their purity and righteousness, and not the literal color of their skin.  

As it says in context: “O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.  Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.”   (Jacob 3:8–9)

In other words the verse is saying, forget your prejudices against them because of their behavior that you associate with their “skin” color, and remember that everyone is judged according to their own deeds (not their skin color).

Jacob 3:8–9 is speaking of physical skin color differences between the Nephites and Lamanites 
and associating it with spiritual cleanliness.  I'm not the one associating it with literal 
skin color. It's the Book of Mormon.  And that is how the seminary manual is associating/
interpreting it as too.

"Mormon prophets and modern prophets have taught it is wrong to revile or look down upon 
people because of the color of their skin (see Jacob 3:9)."

The manual is speaking of physical skin color, and uses the reference to verse 9, which also 
speaks of a physical skin color.  That physical skin color is then associated with the 
judgment in verse 8.

Remember, the Lamanites and Nephites were aware of their difference as it pertains to skin 
color (2 Nephi 5:21, "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore 
cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, 
that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair 
and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a 
skin of blackness to come upon them").
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Actually, the white/purity metaphor is perfectly in harmony with the Bible:

Psalm 51:7:  “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.”

Daniel 11:35: “And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed."

Daniel 12:10: “Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."

These Old Testament passages are not speaking about one's physical skin color turning white.  
And church teachings do not interpret it that way.  You can even check your seminary manuals.

Maybe you are conflating this with the converted Lamanites in 3 Nephi 2:15 ("And their curse
was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites") or the Nephite 
children in 3 Nephi 19:25 ("And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto 
him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon 
them, and behold, they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and 
behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing 
upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof").

The New Testament mentions raiment becoming exceeding white (Matthew 17:1–2; Mark 9:2–3; 
Luke 9:28–29) but never about a person's skin color becoming white.  Excluding leprosy of 
course.

If you believe Daniel 12:10 is about physical skin color, then I assume you believe the 
wicked (the unpurified) will be made black.  1 Nephi 10:21 says, "Wherefore, if ye have 
sought to do wickedly in the days of your probation, then ye are found unclean before the 
judgment–seat of God; and no unclean thing can dwell with God; wherefore, ye must be cast 
off forever".  

Maybe your view of all the unclean that don't dwell with God has them all being made black 
and those who are purified being made white when they dwell with God.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

I’m referring to the insertion of the word “homoousious” by the emperor Constantine into the Nicene Creed, which redefined how the Father and Son are “one”, making them to be one substance or one being.

How was the Father and the Son being "one" understood before emperor Constantine inserted 
the word "homoousious"?

I don't believe Father and the Son are one being but I believe they are one God.  I don't 
comprehend how.

I used to be a Roman Catholic early in life and was never taught the Father and the Son are 
one being.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

This is a great departure from what was taught in Christianity prior to that time, since the early Christians taught that Jesus is “the second God” or “another God”, and that Jesus and his Father are one in unity of will.  And the “homoousious” idea can’t be found anywhere in the Bible.

The Trinity is difficult to comprehend but the scriptures (a sample below) affirms there is 
only one God.

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, 
whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3).

"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" (Isaiah 43:10).

"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, 
and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not 
I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God 
beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isaiah 44:6,8).
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

The early Christians believed Jesus is the second God or “another God”, and that other gods exist just as the Bible teaches, and Latter-day Saints believe that other gods exist, just as the Bible teaches, and neither group is polytheist.

Moses and Satan were both referred to as gods but they were not deities.

There are many references to gods in the Bible but they refer to human judges or pagan gods 
(which some people believe are true gods).

In the Old Testament, Jehovah executed judgment against the Egyptian gods.  These were false, 
pagan gods, but the Egyptians regarded them as true Gods.

There are several definitions of polytheism:

    • The worship of or belief in more than one god.
    • The doctrine of, or belief in, a plurality of gods.
    • The belief of the existence of many gods.
    
Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Neither do we.

You and some of your colleagues may not believe in the existence of Gods before or after 
Heavenly Father.  

Would you explain how Heavenly Mother and Father became Gods before Jesus was born to them?

As for Gods being made [being formed] after Heavenly Father, past LDS Presidency member 
George Q. Cannon taught:

TO BE MADE GODS. God has removed doubts from our hearts and our minds concerning these things. 
We know them. The testimony of God is with us. He bears testimony to us that we are His 
children. And he wants to draw us to Him, in His arms of love. He wants to save us and exalt 
us and make us [form us] like Himself, clothe us with glory and make us indeed gods in the 
eternal world, wielding dominion and power" (Gospel Truth, volume 1, page 107).

"Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn 
how to be Gods yourselves... the same as all Gods have done before you" (Teachings of the 
Prophet Joseph Smith, 1938, page 346).  Also in the Joseph Smith Papers.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper–summary/discourse–7–april–1844–as–published–in–times–and–seasons/3#full–transcript

"I believe those Gods that God reveals as Gods to be sons of God, and all can cry, "Abba, 
Father!"  Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even from before the foundation of 
the world, and are the only Gods I have a reverence for" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph 
Smith, 1938, page 375). Also in the Joseph Smith Papers.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper–summary/history–1838–1856–volume–f–1–1–may–1844–8–august–1844/110#full–transcript

"The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself; we are created 
to become Gods like unto our Father in Heaven" (Brigham Young, The Gospel of Salvation, 
August 8 1852, Journal of Discourses, volume 1, page 93).

https://journalofdiscourses.com/3/13
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

 God is an eternal being, therefore, nothing can exist “before” or “after” him.  He has existed eternally.

Yes. We keep coming back to this.

God is an eternal, uncreated being. I think you believe that you, with all humans, are eternal, 
uncreated beings too.  But you are not the Eternal God.  If LDS theology is true and you 
become a God, you will still be considered an eternal being but you will not be considered 
the Eternal God because you have not always been God.  In LDS theology, Heavenly Mother and 
Father have not been Gods eternally because they became Gods.  But yes, they can be viewed 
as eternal beings in LDS theology but not Eternal Gods in the way I am explaining.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Think about numbers on a number line stretching out in both directions to infinity.  What number comes before infinity?  What number comes after infinity?   It’s meaningless.

Former LDS Presidents Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and First Presidency member George Q. 
Cannon taught humans can become Gods in your "infinity line".

I believe there is only one God in the line stretching out in both directions to infinity.  
"Eternal God" is a simple way to describe him.

The Mormon Heavenly Father's existence as a God begins when he becomes a God. The same for 
the Mormon Heavenly Mother.  So it's not unreasonable to say that an LDS plurality of Gods 
exist in your "infinity line".  Heavenly Father of our Earth is not the first – he won't 
be the last.

While this is comprehensible, it is not understood by many.

George Q. Cannon, former member of the First Presidency, worded it in this way:

RACE OF GODS REDEEMED. It was necessary that a probation should be given to man. The courts 
of heaven were thronged with spirits that desired tabernacles. They wanted to come and 
obtain fleshly tabernacles as their Father had done. Their progenitors, the race of Gods with 
whom they associated and from whom they have descended, had had the privilege of coming on 
earthly probations and receiving tabernacles, which by obedience they had been able to redeem. 
Hence, I say, the courts of heaven were thronged with spirits anxious to take upon themselves 
tabernacles of flesh, agreeing to come forth and be tested and tried in order that they might 
receive exaltation" (Gospel Truth, volume 1, chapter 2, page 25).
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

I already explained to you how your interpretation of “everlasting to everlasting” in the Bible is flawed, and the problem is not because of what “everlasting” means in English.  The problem is because of what the Hebrew word ‘ôlām means in Hebrew.  The Hebrew word ‘ôlām just means an indefinite period of time.  

To demonstrate this fact, notice how the Hebrew word ‘ôlām is used in this verse:  

“And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time [‘ôlām], even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.” (Joshua 24:2)

When you consider the word "everlasting", it must be taken in context of what the scripture 
is trying to convey.  Just like the word "firstborn".  There can be several meanings. Firstborn 
does not necessarily mean first born.

Exodus 4:22 says, "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, 
even my firstborn."

Speaking of David (verses 20), Psalm 89:27 says, "Also I will make him my firstborn, higher 
than the kings of the earth."

Jeremiah 31:9 says, "They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: 
I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not 
stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn."

Colossians 1:18 says, "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the 
firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence".

I think you tried to mischaracterize the context also when we were conversing about people's 
skin turning white and you referenced some biblical passages (Psalm 51:7; Daniel 11:35; 
Daniel 12:10).
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Furthermore, I explained to you previously how it was that Joseph Smith taught that God “became God “in relationship to us in my post on 10/30/2022 and 11/10/2022.  God the Father has always been above all others.

That is a different concept than Heavenly Father once being a man who became a God, who then 
went on to populate our Earth and supposedly many other worlds. 

You never did explain how you believe Heavenly Father of our Earth is above all the other 
Gods before him.  

As for "God became God in relationship to us", this God must have already become a God in 
order to have eternal increase.  That is a blessing of exaltation in LDS theology.  Jesus, 
taught to be the first spirit child of heavenly parents, became a God in the premortal life. 
This is after Heavenly Mother had already become a God herself and then gave birth to him 
in spirit form.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

 How he came to be our God is explained in this statement from Joseph Smith:

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

Here is another "first principle" on how God came to be God.

"... it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to 
be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that 
God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you 
may see.

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of 
the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse 
with him as one man converses with another" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 345).

The LDS Heavenly Father, when he was a spirit child of his own heavenly parents, progressed 
into becoming a God.  The heading just before these paragraphs is "God an Exalted Man".
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Nobody will ever be equal to God the Father in the number of souls he brings unto immortality and eternal life, and that is part of his “glory”.  The same goes for the number of his creations.  Even though we inherit all that he has, he will always be the God of all other gods.

In LDS theology, I cannot presume to know how many spirit children Heavenly Father had, nor 
if he had more, less, or equal to what his Father (Jesus' grandfather) had.

"Becoming like him" is more appropriately termed "becoming a God", i.e., achieving godhood.

"The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself; we are created 
to become Gods like unto our Father in Heaven" (Brigham Young, The Gospel of Salvation, 
August 8 1852, Journal of Discourses, volume 1, page 93).

https://journalofdiscourses.com/3/13

"Our theology begins with heavenly parents, and our highest aspiration is to attain the 
fulness of eternal exaltation" (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, October 2013 General Conference).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general–conference/2013/10/no–other–gods?lang=eng

"Many of the adversary's most relentless temptations involve violations of moral purity. The 
power to create life is the one privilege of godhood that Heavenly Father allows His mortal 
children to exercise" (Think Celestial!, President Russell M. Nelson, October 2023 General 
Conference).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general–conference/2023/10/51nelson?lang=eng

This culminates in eternal increase only for those who achieve godhood in the highest division 
of the Celestial Kingdom.  The other immortal beings in the other kingdoms do not have this
 privilege or ability because they are not Gods.

"Your fatherhood is, in a sense, an apprenticeship to godhood" (Gospel Classics by the Quorum 
of the Twelve Apostles)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2002/06/father–consider–your–ways?lang=eng

This apprenticeship is fulfilled for the exalted beings who achieve godhood and then start 
having eternal increase.

"The commandment to multiply and replenish the earth has never been rescinded. It is essential 
to the plan of redemption and is the source of human happiness. Through the righteous exercise 
of this power, we may come close to our Father in Heaven and experience a fulness of joy, even 
godhood. The power of procreation is not an incidental part of the plan; it is the plan of 
happiness; it is the key to happiness" (The Plan of Happiness, Boyd K. Packer, President of 
the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general–conference/2015/04/the–plan–of–happiness?lang=eng
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

“I’ve given you an explanation for Alma 12:31 (see here, here, and here).  If you are still not sure as to why it read differently previously, could you please at least enlighten me on how my prior explanation(s) didn’t help and why you keep bringing it up?”

Acknowledged.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

You didn’t directly answer my question about Hebrews 12:9, but from what you say above I gather that you believe that when Hebrews 12:7-9 talks about the chastening of a father to his sons and compares the “fathers of our flesh” to the “Father of spirits”, it is talking about literal “fathers of our flesh” on the one hand as compared to the figurative “Father of spirits” on the other hand, with the latter meaning that God created us and he is only our “Father” in a figurative sense.  Is that correct?

That's what I was meaning.   I don't believe we are spirit children of heavenly parents.  

As for literal and figurative, President Ezra Taft Benson taught Heavenly Father was also 
the father of mortal body of Jesus in the most literal sense.

"I am bold to say to you, ... Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The 
body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we 
worship as God, our Eternal Father. He was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the 
Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father!" (Gospel Classics: Five Marks of the Divinity 
of Jesus Christ).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2001/12/five–marks–of–the–divinity–of–jesus–christ?lang=eng

The seminary manual (Religion 430–431 – Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual) refers to 
this as a Celestial Sireship – "not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a 
higher manifestation thereof". 
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

My reference to Acts 17:28-29 is not to claim that we are God’s offspring (although that is certainly implied there as well).  Rather, the point here is that the Greek word that is translated as “offspring” in that verse means that we are the very same kind of being as God, same race or genus (using the taxonomic term), and this is how Paul’s Greek audience would have understood the meaning of the word.  Paul intentionally used that word for that very meaning.  To try to claim that Paul really meant that we are created by God (and not really the same kind of being) would destroy Paul’s whole argument to the men of Athens, as I’ll explain below.

The method of creation is the key.  Does God need a Heavenly Wife?  I would say no.

"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." (Acts 17:28–29).

Paul may have had "The Phaenomena of Aratus" in mind.

With Jove we must begin; nor from him rove;
Him always praise, for all is full of Jove!
He fills all places where mankind resort,
The wide–spread sea, with every shelt'ring port.
Jove's presence fills all space, upholds this ball;
All need his aid; his power sustains us all.
For we his offspring are; and he in love
Points out to man his labour from above:
Where signs unerring show when best the soil,
By well–timed culture, shall repay our toil.

I think he is referring to us being offspring in a spiritual sense, of a living God and his 
argument is their use of statues in their worship, which cannot talk, see, or hear.

The pagans understood "offspring" in the sexual case of literal reproduction for the Greek 
gods; like that which occurs between male and female.  While Paul uses the term, he is not 
inferring the involvement of a heavenly mother or any type of procreation of a celestial 
nature  

Other lengthy commentaries about this are found here:

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/acts/17–28.html

In Matthew 3:9, it says: "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our 
father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto
Abraham".
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

As you can see, there’s a family relationship or species/kind-of-being understanding built into the meaning of this word génos that goes far beyond the idea of creation alone (and that is also why our modern word “genes” is based on this Greek word).

Genesis 1:26–27 says, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and 
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the 
cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female 
created he them".

Apes resemble humans in their physical features but we don't classify the apes as being made 
in the image of God.  So image has a deeper meaning here.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

And when Paul says we are the “kind” of being that God is, this can’t be referring to the genetics of our physical bodies, because our bodies are the offspring of our mortal parents.  Instead, this is referring to the relationship of our eternal spirits to God our Father, for our spirits came from God who is the “Father of spirits” (Heb 12:9).  And in the beginning, God created Adam’s body from the dust of the earth (the elements) and God put into him the “breath” (or spirit – same Hebrew word) of life, and he “became a living soul”.  His body came from the dust, but his spirit came from God (this is the same for all of us, not just Adam).  It is in this way that we are created in the image and likeness of God, for we not only have God’s form in likeness, but we have the image of his spirit as intelligent beings.

Yes. I can agree with that. We are not offspring in the sense of genetics.  We are spirit 
offspring in the sense of relationship.  We become the children of God through adoption.

However, from the Pearl of Great Price, these beings already had intelligence before their 
beginning as spirit children of heavenly parents.

"Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be 
more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent 
than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall 
exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal" (Abraham 3:18).

They are later referred to as souls (Abraham 3:23).  Following the narrative of the Pearl of 
Great Price, it is probably at this time when the eternal, uncreated intelligences are formed 
into a different type of spirit being. What is not specified is if the Father also breathed 
into them the spirit of life after forming their spirit bodies and whether a heavenly wife 
was involved in the breathing into their bodies or whether she was involved in the creation 
of their spirit bodies too.

Or maybe the terms souls, spirits, and intelligences are synonymous; they signify some form 
of gnolaum being; a being who existed prior to being formed into a spirit child through 
eternal increase (a procreation of sorts).
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

 So here in these verses Paul is not only saying that man and God are the same category of being, but he is also saying they are the very same “kind” of being.  We are all his “offspring”.  This is vastly different from the view that Christians developed in the late 2nd century and onward.  For some reason they don’t believe what Paul taught about God and our relationship with him.

It all boils down to if people view offspring as a relationship to God (in the sense of 
being adopted as sons and daughters through faith) or offspring in the sense of some type 
of procreation between heavenly beings in a celestial marriage.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

We believe that “in the work of the Creation, the Lord organized elements that had already existed (see Abraham 3:24). He did not create the world ‘out of nothing,’ as some people believe.

Yes. I've heard about this.

Some lifeforms existed as uncreated, eternal spirit/intelligences and were then formed into 
spirit children of heavenly parents. The LDS Heavenly Mother and Father were once existing 
as these lifeforms before they were born as spirit children to their respective heavenly 
parents.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

So we fully believe that man was “created”, although we might understand the word “created” differently than the way most Christians defined it after the 3rd century AD.  The spirits of men were “organized”, and man was “created” or organized from the dust of the earth.  And from our current point of view on earth, there is a distinction between God and his creation.  Relative to our earthily existence, God is clearly the “uncreated one” and humans are the “created”.

From how I understand Abraham 3, the spirits/intelligences were not created. They already 
existed before they became spirit children of heavenly parents. I think the term used is 
"organized".  I prefer to use the word "procreated".  After all, a husband and wife having 
a child are not "organizing" a child. If Heavenly Mother and Father really exist and they 
are having children, I don't see anything offensive in using that term.

Yes. It seems we do understand the word "created" differently.  It seems you also understand 
"being formed into a God" as not being the same as "becoming a God"

In line with that perspective, the LDS Heavenly Father (the God of our Earth) is the "created 
one" too.  He was created by his own heavenly father and mother. The same applies to the LDS
Jesus.  Latter–day Saints who hope to become Gods and perform eternal increase will not be 
viewed as always having existed as the "uncreated ones".  They were the "created ones" too.  
They were supposedly "created" by their Heavenly Parents. The spirit children that they (the 
subsequent parents) believe they will produce will also be the "created ones".  The 
"creatures" ("the created ones"), progress with the potential to become the new "Creators".
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

I don’t try to interpret the Nicene Creed at all.  Rather, I use non-LDS Christian sources to have them explain how they interpret it, because it would be wrong to misrepresent what other people believe and teach.

I quoted from the Got Questions website explanation of the Nicene Creed, remember?  In the article titled: What is the meaning of homoousious?, they quoted the Nicene Creed as follows:   “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.”

Do you think the Got Questions website is interpreting the creed incorrectly?

About https://www.gotquestions.org/homoousious.html.

It said:

"In response, a bishop named Athanasius insisted that Jesus was homoousious with the Father—of 
the "same substance"—the same kind of being. In other words, Jesus is divine in the same way 
as the Father is".

"We find the teaching that the Father and the Son are homoousious in John 1:1, Philippians 
2:6, and Colossians 2:9. More importantly, the concept of homoousious explains the entire 
sweep of the New Testament teaching about the Person and nature of Jesus Christ. Jesus is 
fully God in the same way that the Father is God—they are of the same divine nature".

That is the correct interpretation.  The Father and the Son are not the same being.  Jesus 
and Heavenly Father are not "created" as spirit children of their respective heavenly parents.

Maybe you understand "homoousious" differently from like I do.  Similar to how you partly
view how Heavenly Father became the God of us without the other component - in that the LDS
Heavenly Father became a God before he even started having spirit children.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

I also have several books on the Trinity to help me understand what other Christians believe about the Trinity (again, because I want to understand another person’s beliefs accurately).

No one can fully understand the Trinity and many different groups try to give their best 
explanation, but I think, based on what you included in your last reply, that only the 
Latter–day Saints hold that the Trinity (the Godhead) consist of 3 Gods. In LDS theology, 
if I am interpreting it accurately, believes that the Godhead only consisted of Heavenly 
Father before Jesus and the Holy Ghost became Gods.  

I believe that somehow the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three personages but one God. It 
is explained in similar fashion in the Book of Mormon.

"And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen" (2 Nephi 
31:21).

"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" (Alma 11:27–31).

There is no concept of a Trinity or Godhead in JW theology as others understand it.  The 
Father is Jehovah, the Son is Michael the Archangel, the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force 
like electricity.

See "Divine", Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1 if you wish to read a supplemental to the 
books you mentioned.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp–e/1200001201#h=5:0–9:756
 
I avoid all discussion of the Trinity when speaking with Jehovah Witnesses.  I can't understand 
it, and they don't accept it.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe that Trinitarians are teaching a different god and a different Christ than what Jesus and the apostles taught when Trinitarians teach that Jesus is “of one Being with the Father”?  If so, are they in apostasy?

All I know is my belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being three different personages 
(beings).  The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. 

Maybe they believe he was talking to himself when the Father was addressing the Son.

Yes. If they have an incorrect view of God, then they are in apostasy. Does this constitute 
a false god?  It depends on who you are talking to. Does believing in Jesus being Michael 
the Archangel mean one is in apostasy?  Yes.  Does believing in a Jesus who was the first 
spirit child of heavenly parents who progressed into becoming a God means one is in apostasy? 
Yes.  Does believing in a God who was once a man who progressed into becoming Heavenly 
Father of our Earth mean one is in apostasy? Yes.  Does worshipping a God that is contrary 
to what God has revealed about himself in scripture mean one is in danger of being lost? 
I would say yes.

I believe God has sufficiently revealed his true identify in the scripture so we won't be 
following the "another Jesus" that Paul warned the Galatians to avoid.

There is no second chance after death.  If I am wrong, and Heavenly Father really is a 
product of his heavenly parents, and he progressed into becoming a God and Father of our 
Earth, then I admit that I am currently worshipping a false god.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Only if you interpret “father” in a heavenly context.  Joseph Smith also spoke about him as being born as a man (which requires having a father).  There are other ways that can be viewed, but we don’t have enough information about what Joseph Smith meant (or even the accuracy of the account, given that the notes were taken by hand during that sermon) to draw any solid conclusions.

You can apply the same logic to the Book of Mormon being translated into English.  You don't 
have enough information about what Joseph Smith really meant because you don't have the 
golden plates.  They were conveniently taken back and away by an angel.

I suspect a future LDS leadership will inform the membership that we don't really have 
enough information about what the past First Presidency meant when they issued The Family: 
Proclamation to the World.

It's a common fail–safe tactic to deny anything taught by any LDS leader of the past.  Just 
say "we don't understand what they meant".

Joseph Smith termed it more appropriately in several instances:

"God made Aaron to be the mouthpiece for the children of Israel, and He will make me to be 
god to you in His stead, and the Elders to be mouth for me; and if you don't like it, you 
must lump it" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, also History of the Church, volume 6).

"We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea,
and take away the veil, so that you may see. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but 
they are simple" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, also History of the Church, volume 
6).
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Or it does.  You interpret it your own way, but the Bible says God the Father brought his “firstbegotten” into the world.  It means what it says.

Begotten has several meanings.

Acts 13:33 relates the resurrection to being begotten ("God hath fulfilled the same unto us 
their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second 
psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee").

Christ is not begotten with a heavenly mother here.

1 Peter 1:3 says, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according 
to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ from the dead".

We are not begotten again with a heavenly mother.

Philemon 1:10 says, "I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds. 
This is similar to 1 Corinthians 4:15 ("For though ye have ten thousand instructors in 
Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the 
gospel").

A heavenly mother is not involved in the begetting.

Then we have John 3:16 ("For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"). Some translations 
have "eternal life". The terms are synonymous.

Here's another – 1 John 4:9 ("In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that 
God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him".

Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father before and after his incarnation.  In LDS 
theology, Jesus is one of billions of begotten sons of heavenly parents and the "only 
begotten in the flesh" through Mary and Heavenly Father. 

LDS leaders have interpreted that in the most literal sense. I won't quote them all here.  
But one seminary manual even refers to it as a "Celestial Sireship". Both Brigham Young and 
Orson Pratt taught Heavenly Father and Mary must have been associated together in the 
capacity of husband and wife – Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

In other words, he was the “firstborn of every creature” prior to creation, and he is the preeminent one put in charge of creation, and he is also the “firstborn from the dead” (i.e. he was the first to be resurrected) so that he might have preeminence in “all things”. 

Right. Firstborn does not mean "first born" in all cases. 
 
Jesus is the creator. He created Lucifer, Michael, and the other angels.  

But in LDS theology, if I understand correctly, he is before all things in the sense that 
he is before all other spirit children of heavenly parents.  However, he is not before all 
things in the sense of eternal, uncreated, intelligences.  Apparently he becomes the first
born of all spirit children when he is formed (created) as a spirit child. Then he becomes 
the firstborn (preeminent) afterwards.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

We know what “firstborn from the dead” means, but what does “firstborn of every creature” mean?

Jesus is the cause of every creature being created.  There is no angel Lucifer without Christ 
creating him.  Christ is preeminent above all creation.

The Watchtower's translation of the Bible adds a few extra words to the Greek text - "created 
[all other] things". Christ becomes the first creation of Jehovah in their theology.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Also, you did not answer my questions about whether you believe Jesus was “begotten of the Father before all worlds” as it says in the creeds. 

Was Jesus “begotten of the Father before all worlds” as the early Christians creeds teach, or not?  Or do you believe something else?

Begotten, not made.  Christ is preeminent above all creation, anywhere.  

In LDS theology, it is unclear if Heavenly Father of our Earth (Elohim) is preeminent above 
all of his heavenly father's other spirit children or whether there's another "Jesus" of 
that realm, which is above our Earth's "Elohim".
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

You also said, “It could also mean coming into power and authority” (regarding Jesus being the “firstbegotten”).

So, do you believe that Jesus came into power and authority?  Does that mean you also believe he became God?

Jesus coming with power and great glory in the future does not equal Jesus becoming God.

Remember, the LDS Jesus was not God when he was born the first spirit child of heavenly 
parents. He had no power and no authority [unless he was a super baby with great strength]. 
This child progressed into becoming a God in his pre–mortal life.

Would you describe the circumstances around which you believe Jesus became God and when?
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Remember, we are comparing this to what Paul meant when he warned against preaching of a different Jesus than what Jesus or the apostles taught (not compared to what you personally believe).

This "another Jesus" qualifies for how Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the scripture.  He is 
taught to be Michael the Archangel.  In LDS theology, Adam is Michael the Archangel.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

I asked you what is the difference between the Jehovah’s Witnesses using scripture to support their views about Jesus, and the later Christian concept of a “homoousious” Father and Son which has no support from scripture at all? 

Ask this question again if you feel I didn't cover it enough earlier in this reply.  

But briefly, both groups are wrong if they interpret the scripture to mean the Father and 
the Son are the same being.  The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

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?

Ask this question again if you feel I didn't cover it enough earlier in this reply.  

The apostles never taught the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are 3 Gods.  They never taught 
about there being one or more heavenly wives of Heavenly Father.  They also never taught 
that Heavenly Father was once a man who became God or that Jesus is the first spirit child 
of heavenly parents who became God.

Remember, these concepts are not found in scripture.

Apparently concepts are in harmony with scripture to YOU if scripture does not say otherwise.  
Great! [Sarcastically speaking,] we can teach anything [fact or speculation], and label is 
as a doctrine or gospel principle, if scripture doesn't speak against it.

Kind of like what Joseph Smith did when he taught we can detect a false angel by its 
sandy–colored hair.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

How do you define “Trinitarian”?  I define that as a person who believes in the doctrine of the Trinity.

The doctrine of the Trinity – different strokes for different folks.  In the LDS trinity, 
all three Gods have not eternally existed as Gods. They became Gods through their own stages 
of probation.

I already mentioned what I believe about the Trinity.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe that the three persons of the Godhead are each Gods, but are one God in unity like the Bible teaches and the early (pre-Nicene) Christians and the Latter-day Saints believe?  Or do you believe something else?

On a human level, I would say 1+1+1 = 3.  But understood another way, it could be 1x1x1 = 1.

I cannot go beyond the scripture of there being one God. I quoted several passages in the 
Bible for me and the Book of Mormon for you.

Understanding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as 1 God doesn't imply that God is a "three–headed 
monster" as Joseph Smith described it.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

The Bible tells us to beware of false prophets, but that also means there will be true prophets of God.  Jesus said that he would be sending more prophets and people would reject them the same as with past prophets (Matthew 23:34-35).   And when God calls prophets, he directs them by revelation the same as he has always done and reveals teachings about himself, some of which may not have been made known as clearly in prior revelations (scripture).  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).

Suppose false prophets or leaders of a certain Christian denomination introduce new theology 
about the nature of God. This theology doesn't align with Scripture and even contradicts it. 
These leaders create new ordinances that were never practiced by the early church in the New 
Testament, promoting teachings that tickle the ears of their followers, but ultimately are 
deceptive and misleading.

How would you recognize them as false prophets and leave?

What of the false prophets of Hinduism, which lead their adherents to worship Brahma, Vishnu, 
or Shiva or all three of them? Are these false prophets?  What about worshipping the blue–
elephant–headed god Ganesha? Is he a false God?

How far can one deviate from scripture, and how many false teachings about God must be spread, 
before that God is really a false God?
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

That sounds exactly like what the early Christian Father Origen (185-254 AD) taught in his Commentary on John 1:1:

“As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so "the Logos" is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty.”  CHURCH FATHERS: Commentary on John, Book II (Origen)

So it sounds like this was a teaching that the early Christians believed as well.

I don't believe there are Gods in existence before the LDS Jesus or Heavenly Father becoming 
Gods themselves.  It is not in harmony with scripture.

About the phrase "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by 
the offices of the first–born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure 
that they should be made gods".

Do you believe gods are made (are formed)?
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

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?   <-  THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU.

This is referring to eternal life from the moment of their faith in Christ.  It is forward–
looking. We do not possess eternal life in the sense of LDS theology – that we have eternally 
possessed life as eternal, uncreated intelligences.  If I not mistaken, Latter–day Saints 
believe they already possess eternal life before even coming to Earth.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Where does scripture say Jesus always existed as God?

Hmmm... can I borrow one of your arguments?   Where does it say that Jesus is the first 
spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God in his pre–mortal life?

I base my belief on Christ as the Eternal God, from all eternity to all eternity, with what 
I have quoted several times from the prophet Isaiah. Psalm 90:2 is another ("Before the 
mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from 
everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.").  Then, another is John 8:58.  Jesus (God) said 
I AM, not I WAS. Jesus is revealing his eternal nature of being God.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Why does Acts 2:36 say that God “made” Jesus “both Lord and Christ”?  Was he not “both Lord and Christ” before the God and Father of Jesus Christ “made” him that way?

I addressed this earlier but since you brought it up again, I'll pose a question for you.

Do you view that statement as meaning Jesus was made (was formed) into a God?  If yes, how 
and when?
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Why does Matthew 28:18 have Jesus saying that “all power is given to me in heaven and earth”?  Did he not have that power before?

Yes. When Christ became man in the incarnation, he lay aside that "all power" for a time. 
 
In military analogy, this would be like a General removing his uniform to wear civilian 
clothes, laying aside his power and authority. He is still a General but he is temporally 
suspending that prerogative – unless he decides to exercise some of it while in civilian 
clothes.

The scriptures allude to this.

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God [the 
NIV has "Who, being in very nature God] thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But 
made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the 
likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient 
unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and 
given him a name which is above every name" (Philippians 2:5–9).

Being highly exalted does not mean Christ was formed (made) into a God.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Why does Jesus in John 17:22 pray for his disciples by saying, “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them”?  In John 17:5 it says Jesus had this glory with the Father “before the world was”.  When did the God and Father of Jesus Christ give that “glory” to Jesus?  (It had to be “before the world was” according to John 17:5 and 24). Did Jesus not have that glory before his God and Father gave it to him?

It depends on what type of glory you are referring to or what you mean by "receiving glory". 

Maybe you're referring to when the LDS Heavenly Father formed Jesus into a God or when he 
was first born to a heavenly father and mother?
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

It doesn’t say in that passage.  But elsewhere the book of Revelation says for those who “overcome”, Jesus will cause them to be worshipped by other humans (Revelation 3:8-9, see also Isaiah 49:23 and 60:14).  These overcomers are also those who sit with the God of Jesus Christ and with Jesus Christ on God’s throne (Revelation 3:21).  So according to what Jesus says about others who become like God in the Bible, they are worshipped.

Do you mean humans (who become Gods) will be worshipped by their spirit brothers (in the 
same family of the same Heavenly Father) and their spirit brothers (not exalted) will worship 
both Heavenly Father and their newly–exalted spirit brothers, or just one of these options?

There is a variation of this in the 1997 Gospel Principles, in the Exaltation chapter.

Blessings of Exaltation
These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:
3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit 
children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to 
our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.

These future–exalted Gods of our Earth will be worshipped by the spirit children they have 
through eternal increase.  But these spirit children are not mentioned as worshipping both 
their Heavenly Father and the Father of their Heavenly Father.  

Also, humans on Earth who are not currently exalted do not worship their spirit brothers 
(Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), who LDS teach have already entered into their exaltation (Doctrine
and Covenants 132:57).
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

So, according to your reasoning, Psalm 86:8 would be, “Among the fictional gods (that some people believe are real) there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works"?  Is that right?

And Exodus 15:11 would be, "Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the fictional gods (that some people believe are real)? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?"

Isn’t that the same as comparing God to Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny?  How does comparing him to fictional characters that some people believe exist show praise to God about his greatness?

And wouldn’t doing that promote the legitimacy of those false gods?  Think about that for a moment.  Let’s assume you believe Zeus and Hermes are true deities (these false gods are mentioned in Acts 14:12). And you hear Psalm 86:8 quoted to you, and you imagine it to be saying, “Among Zeus and Hermes there is none like the LORD [YHWH], neither are there any works like unto the LORD’s works.”  Doesn’t that just legitimize the reality of Zeus and Hermes by saying that?   “Oh yeah” (you might think), “Zeus and Hermes are good gods, but YHWH sounds more powerful!”.

Or even with the statement from Deuteronomy 17:10 saying God is “the God of gods”.  With that same line of reasoning you might think, “Yes, he’s the God of Zeus and Hermes, so Zeus and Hermes are real and it’s still fine if I believe in them and worship them too”.

God is God over all gods that Hindus believe and worship as true Gods.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

You realize there’s one huge difference between the verses you quoted from Exodus 18:10-11, and what is said in Psalm 86:8 or Exodus 15:11, right?  Exodus 18:10-11 is quoting Jethro, a Kenite shepherd, from his point of view, while Exodus 15:11 is a part of a God inspired song of Moses, and Psalm 86:8 is part of the song of David.

Why would Moses, a prophet of God, give credence to false gods by comparing them to the God of Israel in Exodus 15:11?

There’s a lot more that could be said about these verses and the ancient Israel point of view on the gods of the nations and the idea of elohim ruling the nations under God’s authority, but there are many books and papers written on that topic by biblical scholars, and I’ll just say there is way more to this than can be explained here.

God is above all the gods that Jethro believed were true gods.  That is what I meant.  He is 
still polytheist but acknowledges the top God.  Jethro does not renounce his belief in these 
other interior gods, which he still regards as being true gods.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Second, as I stated previously, the punishment given to these “gods” to “die like men”, and that makes absolutely no sense if they are already men.  It’s nonsense.

How can the LDS Heavenly Father and Mother die?
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Third, and most importantly, the idea that this divine council consists of human judges contradicts the other verses I brought up, like Psalm 89:5-7, which speaks of these gods in a heavenly council. 

Psalm 82:1–4 says, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 
How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Defend the poor and 
fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out 
of the hand of the wicked".

How are these Gods judging unjustly, accepting the persons of the wicked, failing to defend 
the poor and fatherless, and not doing justice to the afflicted and needy?
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

So do you agree with the Got Questions website article, What is the divine council?, that the divine council is a pantheon of heavenly beings?  That’s exactly how Michael Heiser described it in his book, The Unseen Realm.  He wrote, “The God of the Old Testament was part of an assembly—a pantheon—of other gods.” (p. 11).  That’s the same book that is recommended by the Got Questions website on that topic (at the bottom of that webpage article).

No.

For me, the term "pantheon" brings an imagery of Gods, like the Greek and Roman pantheon and 
its hierarchy of Gods.  In short, polytheism.  I agree with heavenly beings like angels and 
other created beasts like the Book of Revelation refers to.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Another question comes to mind.  Remember what I said last time?  The Bible teaches we will become “like him” (Jesus,1 John 3:2), and Jesus is like his Father (John 12:45):

Like him, yes.  LDS theology goes beyond "like God".  It is "becomes God".  This goes even 
beyond Satan's temptation of Eve.

God "predestined [believers] to be conformed to the likeness of his Son" (Romans 8:29).  
Making us Christlike is God's work, and he will see it through to the end (Philippians 1:6). 

A few things contribute to our being more Christlike: our surrender to God, our freedom from 
sin, and our spiritual growth. Jesus invites us to follow him. We have his example of 
obedience (John 15:10), sacrificial love (John 15:12–13), and patient suffering (1 Peter 2:19–23). 

"... to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt 
through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the 
new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness" (Ephesians 
4:22–24, ESV).

"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, KJV).

The LDS teaching of the pre–mortal existence has spirit children being "like" Heavenly Father, 
but they are not Gods.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you agree with John’s teaching that “we shall be like him”?   If you agree with John, how do you see that fitting with Psalm 89:5-7 as quoted at the beginning of that Got Questions article?

Yes, we shall be like him.  Satan and other angels of God were like Him but they were not Gods.

Adam and Eve, despite being created in the image of God, were not explicitly described as 
becoming like God until after they ate from the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden.

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

I was quoting from the Got Questions website, and I was stating their point of view on that topic.  So, you should ask them what they mean by “supernatural beings”.  Or, read the book they recommended on the topic (The Unseen Realm).

In plain Bible language they are elohim, meaning they are gods.

Angels are supernatural beings.

I think elohim there is a reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – who had roles in 
the creation.  If I am not mistaken, "Elohim" is the name of Heavenly Father.  Jehovah is 
Jesus Christ.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

I don’t know why people want to try to change what the Bible says all the time.  i.e. “No, they can’t be elohim, they’re angels or judges or false gods, but they can’t be real gods!” (Even though that’s what the text says!)

Can elohim be used to refer to false Hindu gods?
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

I think your question presupposes a particular interpretation of what people wrote down for what Joseph Smith said that may not be the only way to understand what he said.

There's the fail–safe that I mentioned earlier.

Maybe we can misunderstand everything Joseph Smith said if it doesn't sound quite right or 
we disagree with him but don't want to accuse him of teaching falsely and deceiving people.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Doctrine and Covenants 121:32 and Abraham 3:17-19 are definitive in teaching that God the Father is the God of all other gods.

Ok. Heavenly Father [of Earth] is God of his own Heavenly Father and all the other Gods of 
all the other realms.

Is Abraham [who became "like God") a "God" or a "god" in his exalted state (Doctrine and 
Covenants 132:57)?

Or maybe you define "gods" differently from "Gods"?
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Above you were responding to my explanation about why Paul would be contradicting himself if he was referring to idols instead of real gods that exist in reality in 1 Corinthians 8:5 (since Paul repeatedly denied that idols are gods at all), and you are trying to change the subject to the question you are asking above.  Does that mean you see why Paul would be contradicting himself if he meant false gods when he said there are “lords many, and gods many” in 1 Corinthians 8:5?

As for your question above, see my response above.

There are many false gods, which people believe they are true gods.  

Hindus don't worship deities who they regard to be false.  They worship deities who they 
believe are true gods.
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, all that is biblical.  God gives his glory to the true followers of Christ, even the same glory that Jesus had with the Father in the beginning (John 17:20-23).  And sitting with God in his throne in the same way Jesus is sitting with God in his throne is being made equal to him (sitting side by side with him in his throne).  God gives them all power, all his glory, and all that he has (they will “inherit all things”). 

But as I said above, being “equal” to him in his position on his throne and in power and in receiving all that he has, does not mean that they become equal in all of his accomplishments in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, or in the number of his creations.

Jesus sitting with Heavenly Father in his throne does not mean Jesus was once a spirit child 
of heavenly parents, who progressed into becoming a God (or a god if you prefer that lowercase 
form).
 

On 12/14/2024 at 11:06 PM, InCognitus said:

The same goes for the revealed doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  They are in harmony with the doctrines and teachings of the Bible.  But that doesn’t mean every single detail is found therein.  Our doctrines come from God.  And there are a lot more things that God would like to reveal to us if we would just get on with embracing and acting upon what he has already given us.

Right, every detail is not the same.  But no scripture is in harmony with the LDS teaching 
that Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother were once man and woman, then husband and wife, 
then becoming Gods. Neither is the teaching that Jesus was the first spirit child of heavenly 
parents who also became a God, with the Holy Ghost as an additional spirit brother of ours.

And, despite the teachings of Joseph Smith and others, I don't believe Gods were formed 
before Heavenly Father himself became a God and neither will others become Gods (gods if 
you prefer the lowercase) after him.

I don't mind embracing and acting upon words that my pastor prophesies in his sermons or 
if someone like Philip has four daughters who prophesy (Acts 21:8–9).  But my spidey–senses 
go on high alert if and when my pastor or these four daughters were to create and distribute 
false teachings.

[Pyreaux]

Wow, so long. Forgive if I jump in the conversation and if I miss some context from skim reading. I basically saw disagreeable statements from old Christian ideas of the function of Temples, trinity, the gods, God's Wife, etc that modern scholarship has countered, it even favors our interpretations of the Bible on these things.

On 1/2/2025 at 9:32 AM, theplains said:

Yes. They gathered to the temple for prayer, worship, and fellowship to name a few. 

Do you believe Paul set an example for Christians to perform all the abstinence entailed 
by the Nazarite vow (like bringing a lamb for a trespass offering – Numbers 6:12), followed
by shaving his head or was this an isolated incident?
 

What temple ordinances do you believe they were performing elsewhere but not in the temple at 
Jerusalem?
 

From what I see, females will only be considered priestesses in the highest section of the 
celestial kingdom.  It will not occur in the two lower divisions.  The reference is to being 
priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek (Doctrine and Covenants 76:52–58).  
They had overcome by faith and are now called gods.
 

I mentioned in my last post.

In the context of temple–related practices, Acts 15 details the council at Jerusalem, where 
early church leaders, including Paul, discussed what would be required of Gentile converts. 
They decided that Gentiles did not need to fully adhere to the Law of Moses, which included 
many temple–related ordinances, but should:

Abstain from food sacrificed to idols.
Abstain from blood.
Avoid consuming things strangled.
Avoid fornication.

If you still believe temple ordinances were required by Gentiles but they were performing 
these elsewhere as you hinted at earlier, then please identify them.
 

The pillars in Revelation 3:12 are both men and women who overcame.  These are those who 
are with Christ in his kingdom (3:21).
 

"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more 
out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which 
is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my 
new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches". 

This is about the one temple in heaven, not the temple in Jerusalem or LDS temples on earth. 
Christian men and women were not serving as priests in the temple in Jerusalem.
 

There is no mention of a temple existing in the city of New Jerusalem before or after it 
comes down from heaven.

Maybe you are associating a temple with a city with the future temple in the future city of 
New Jerusalem that Latter–day Saints will supposedly build in Missouri preparatory to the 
Second Coming.
 

The Book of Revelation is referring to the temple in heaven, not in the city of New Jerusalem 
that comes down from heaven, nor the temple in Jerusalem on earth. Christian men and women did 
not serve as Melchizedek or Levitical priests in the Jerusalem temple before it was destroyed.
 

Eh, I don't agree. In the earliest days of Christianity, the followers of Jesus were still very much part of the Temple observance, commanded to worship there daily by an angel. They continued to go to the Temple in Jerusalem for worship. They likely would still be doing it today if the temple stood and if they were allowed to by the Jews. And more.

Acts 2:46: "Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts."

Acts 3:1: "One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon."

Early Christians did not abandon the Temple after Pentecost but continued to observe regular Jewish prayers and worship. They likely participated in daily prayers, as well as specific rituals like the minha (afternoon prayer) and other times of communal worship. Even if Christians no longer believed in the necessity of animal sacrifices, Christians still viewed their participation in other forms of Temple worship as part of their own worship, by command.

Acts 21:20-24: Paul submits to James to join the purification rites.

Acts 21:26: "Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple to give notice of the completion of the days of purification, when the offering would be made for each of them."

Paul had visited the Temple on previous occasions. His visits to the Temple, including the one where he later had the vision in Acts 22, were part of his ongoing Temple observances, even though he was preaching to Gentiles.

Acts 22:17: "When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance and saw the Lord speaking to me"

Had Paul not been visiting the Temple, he might not have received these many temple visions, and he would have continued Temple worship if the Temple had not been so hostile. Christians continued temple-like worship outside of the Jerusalem Temple, and there are significant historical and archaeological evidence that support the Christian practice of "temple worship" in places other than the Temple in Jerusalem. In some places they were even referring to as "temples." Early Christian writers sometimes used the term "temple" to describe these spaces where the worship of God continued, especially after it was legalized under Constantine (early 4th century CE).

It seems that early Christians did have specific locations where they performed initiation rites (mysterions) similar to those in the Jerusalem Temple. For example, evidence suggests that early Christians used a cave on the Mount of Olives for certain ritualistic practices. This cave may have been connected to early Christian initiation rites, possibly even other temple-related rituals.

Early Christian communities used specific garments for these rites, such as white vestures (similar to those worn by priests in the Jewish Temple). These garments would have been worn during ceremonial acts, like after baptism or other initiatory rituals, which were seen as forms of temple-like worship. The white vestments worn by Christians during these rites strongly suggests a connection between the Christian community and the Temple's ancient priesthood. Endowments and Priestly vesture.

The New Jerusalen is described as a perfect cube (Revelation 21:16), therefore the city is a giant Holy of Holies, of a world Temple. The Temple has not become obsolete, it has expanded.

Quote

If I'm not mistaken, you believe the "other sheep" of John 10:16 are the Nephites, based on 
3 Nephi 15:21 ("And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: 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").

But the disciples in Judea wouldn't have understood what Jesus meant because they were not 
aware of the Nephites.

No. They didn't know exactly where they were, they certainly did know there were other Lost Israelite tribes somewhere and they'd certainly would think the phrase "other sheep" that Jesus will go visit will be Israelites specifically, not Gentiles, because he was known to have said concerning sheep he will visit, "I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 15:24). That other interpretation looks more like a stretch.

Quote

Jacob 3:8–9 is speaking of physical skin color differences between the Nephites and Lamanites 
and associating it with spiritual cleanliness.  I'm not the one associating it with literal 
skin color. It's the Book of Mormon.  And that is how the seminary manual is associating/
interpreting it as too.

"Mormon prophets and modern prophets have taught it is wrong to revile or look down upon 
people because of the color of their skin (see Jacob 3:9)."

The manual is speaking of physical skin color, and uses the reference to verse 9, which also 
speaks of a physical skin color.  That physical skin color is then associated with the 
judgment in verse 8.

Remember, the Lamanites and Nephites were aware of their difference as it pertains to skin 
color (2 Nephi 5:21, "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore 
cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, 
that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair 
and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a 
skin of blackness to come upon them").

These Old Testament passages are not speaking about one's physical skin color turning white.  
And church teachings do not interpret it that way.  You can even check your seminary manuals.

Maybe you are conflating this with the converted Lamanites in 3 Nephi 2:15 ("And their curse
was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites") or the Nephite 
children in 3 Nephi 19:25 ("And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto 
him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon 
them, and behold, they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and 
behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing 
upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof").

The New Testament mentions raiment becoming exceeding white (Matthew 17:1–2; Mark 9:2–3; 
Luke 9:28–29) but never about a person's skin color becoming white.  Excluding leprosy of 
course.

If you believe Daniel 12:10 is about physical skin color, then I assume you believe the 
wicked (the unpurified) will be made black.  1 Nephi 10:21 says, "Wherefore, if ye have 
sought to do wickedly in the days of your probation, then ye are found unclean before the 
judgment–seat of God; and no unclean thing can dwell with God; wherefore, ye must be cast 
off forever".  Maybe your view of all the unclean that don't dwell with God has them all being made black 
and those who are purified being made white when they dwell with God.

The Bible, Book of Mormon and Quran all seemingly has "skin" changes from white to black. 

Job 30:30 I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls. My skin is black upon me

Jeremiah 8:21 For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black

Lamentations 4:8 Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk... Now their face is blacker than soot

Qu'ran 3:106 On the Day some faces will turn white and some faces will turn black. As for those whose faces turn black, it will be said, "Did you disbelieve after your belief?" 

In Near Eastern idioms of black or white - skin or faces are thought to be visible, yet not necessarily melanin related, features that gives impression or indication of one's mood, emotion, or character, and called "black" skin, face or eyes, to express a not so visible dark countenance. If the Bible verses of people's skin turning black has more to do with a sorrowful, gloomy or grim facial features or expressions, rather than with pigmentation; Why do we presume the Book of Mormon's doesn't mean exactly what the Bible does by it?

The assumption that the Book of Mormon’s describes skin color as to reflect modern racial categories is rooted in American cultural and historical influences that has likely shaped early interpretations of these passages. Because most LDS today outside the United States don't share our preoccupations, and don't read them that way. If we remove ourselves from these modern conceptions, the Book of Mormon might not mean literal racial or ethnic categories.

Take the Book of Mormon in Alma 56:1-14. In this account, Captain Moroni sends a group of Nephites to sneak through Lamanite territory to reach the city of Bountiful, which is under threat from the Lamanites. To do this, Moroni enlists the help of a Lamanite who is willing to lead the men, despite being an enemy soldier, because he spoke their language. The small band of Nephites, manages to pass through Lamanite territory, avoiding detection. The passage suggests that the Lamanites were unable to distinguish a group of Nephites from Lamanites by sight alone, which raises several significant points. 

Captain Moroni's entire strategy relies on the fact that the Lamanites will not immediately recognize them. This implies that there was no easily recognizable physical difference, such as a very noticeable difference in skin color, between the Nephites and the Lamanites. If the Nephites and Lamanites had distinct, obvious physical features, such as starkly different skin tones, this might have made it much harder for them to blend in, especially if they were trying to infiltrate Lamanite-held areas.

This would suggest that, at least in this instance, the supposed changes the Lamanites had might not have been a permanent, highly visible marker in the way we typically understand racial differences today. It also suggests that the physical difference could have been either minimal or even symbolic, perhaps linked to spiritual conditions or covenant status rather than literal, permanent physical traits. Being "black" as described in the Book of Mormon might manifest as just generic unattractiveness from hard living.

Quote

The Trinity is difficult to comprehend but the scriptures (a sample below) affirms there is 
only one God.

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, 
whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3).

"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" (Isaiah 43:10).

"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, 
and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not 
I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God 
beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isaiah 44:6,8).

According to many Hebrews scholars, the Old Testament's Isaiah “denial phrases” (e.g., “there is none besides me”; “there is none like me”) is simply a manner of speech, it is to say I am unlike any other, it’s not to say there are no others. As evident in how Isaiah, when using the exact same words, "none else beside me" about Babylon was not saying Babylon is the only city (Isa 47:10), he was saying the city was incomparable, alone (in comparison).

As usual, it's never absolute, it's a matter of relativity. There is one true God, the Father, yet there is also a true and derived God, Jesus is also the Lord God of his inherited territory when he was made so by his Father along with seventy other lord gods who inherited other nations to be their real lord and nation god (Deut 32:8). He is not the Gentile's God until they have been adopted by Israel's Lord God, we thereafter have forsaken, don't believe in, nor have faith in, other gods, but that does not mean they aren't real or remain gods to the people God has assigned to them.

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.

They are not fake gods, they are relative gods. They can be real gods, they are simply not gods "to us".

Quote

Moses and Satan were both referred to as gods but they were not deities.

They are not human either. Though it depends on what your predisposition is before reading the texts. Philo of Alexandria or other Jewish figures read Moses' being "god to pharaoh" to mean a more literal statement than you.

In The Life of Moses (Book 1), Philo describes Moses will be "God to Pharaoh," (Exodus 7:1) as Moses will actually become a divine figure in his own right. He doesn't merely speak for God; he becomes an instrument of God's power and wisdom, an intermediary who transcends even ordinary prophetic roles. Not that Moses literally became God, but a god, he achieved a profound level of spiritual transformation, thereby becoming a divine being in the earthly realm.

In On the Special Laws (Book 3), Philo said that Moses, by his ascent to the mountaintop to receive the law, underwent a transformation that went beyond human experience. He describes Moses' radiant appearance, particularly after his encounters with God. This "transfiguration" is not only a physical alteration but also reflects Moses’ elevated state of being, signifying the union between the human and the divine.

Philo, as a monotheistic Jewish scholar of a High Priestly family, is evidence for how unclear the Bible really is about the genos of God and humans. We are the same genos by the laws of heaven. Even adopted children are by divine decree, are literal and begotten children, of the same kind, of same blood, as their father.

Quote

There are many references to gods in the Bible but they refer to human judges or pagan gods 
(which some people believe are true gods).

The Psalm 82 gods are not human judges of Israel, humans are not and never called sons of El Elyon, there is no council of humans who rule the nations they inherited from Elyon. 

Quote

A bishop named Athanasius insisted that Jesus was homoousious with the Father—of 
the "same substance"—the same kind of being. In other words, Jesus is divine in the same way 
as the Father is".

"We find the teaching that the Father and the Son are homoousious in John 1:1, Philippians 
2:6, and Colossians 2:9. More importantly, the concept of homoousious explains the entire 
sweep of the New Testament teaching about the Person and nature of Jesus Christ. Jesus is 
fully God in the same way that the Father is God—they are of the same divine nature".

That is the correct interpretation.  The Father and the Son are not the same being.  Jesus 
and Heavenly Father are not "created" as spirit children of their respective heavenly parents.

Maybe you understand "homoousious" differently from like I do.  Similar to how you partly
view how Heavenly Father became the God of us without the other component - in that the LDS
Heavenly Father became a God before he even started having spirit children.

No one can fully understand the Trinity and many different groups try to give their best 
explanation, but I think, based on what you included in your last reply, that only the 
Latter–day Saints hold that the Trinity (the Godhead) consist of 3 Gods. In LDS theology, 
if I am interpreting it accurately, believes that the Godhead only consisted of Heavenly 
Father before Jesus and the Holy Ghost became Gods.  

I believe that somehow the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three personages but one God. It 
is explained in similar fashion in the Book of Mormon.

"And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen" (2 Nephi 
31:21).

"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" (Alma 11:27–31).

There is no concept of a Trinity or Godhead in JW theology as others understand it.  The 
Father is Jehovah, the Son is Michael the Archangel, the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force 
like electricity.

See "Divine", Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1 if you wish to read a supplemental to the 
books you mentioned.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp–e/1200001201#h=5:0–9:756
 
I avoid all discussion of the Trinity when speaking with Jehovah Witnesses.  I can't understand 
it, and they don't accept it.

All I know is my belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being three different personages 
(beings).  The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. 

Maybe they believe he was talking to himself when the Father was addressing the Son.

Yes. If they have an incorrect view of God, then they are in apostasy. Does this constitute 
a false god?  It depends on who you are talking to. Does believing in Jesus being Michael 
the Archangel mean one is in apostasy?  Yes.  Does believing in a Jesus who was the first 
spirit child of heavenly parents who progressed into becoming a God means one is in apostasy? 
Yes.  Does believing in a God who was once a man who progressed into becoming Heavenly 
Father of our Earth mean one is in apostasy? Yes.  Does worshipping a God that is contrary 
to what God has revealed about himself in scripture mean one is in danger of being lost? 
I would say yes.

I believe God has sufficiently revealed his true identify in the scripture so we won't be 
following the "another Jesus" that Paul warned the Galatians to avoid.

There is no second chance after death.  If I am wrong, and Heavenly Father really is a 
product of his heavenly parents, and he progressed into becoming a God and Father of our 
Earth, then I admit that I am currently worshipping a false god.

You can apply the same logic to the Book of Mormon being translated into English.  You don't 
have enough information about what Joseph Smith really meant because you don't have the 
golden plates.  They were conveniently taken back and away by an angel.

I suspect a future LDS leadership will inform the membership that we don't really have 
enough information about what the past First Presidency meant when they issued The Family: 
Proclamation to the World.

It's a common fail–safe tactic to deny anything taught by any LDS leader of the past.  Just 
say "we don't understand what they meant".

Yet the Trinitarian Jesus is more a pagan god and not the Jesus Paul preached. When the Christianity became the religion of Rome, the Greek Platonic Philosophers of Rome had long abandoned their pantheon of embarrassingly human-like gods for a new philosophically and pagan god called, "The One".

"Socrates and Plato held that (God is) The One, the single self existent nature... all variety of names point immediately to mind. God therefore is mind.. that is to say what is purely immaterial and unconnected with anything passable" (Plutarch, in Eusebias, Preparations for the Gospel 14:16)

This pagan god influenced the Christian desire to also believe in a single being devoid of any human qualities, even one that is also "impassable" (devoid of emotions), and are the ideas that influenced the Council of Nicea to formulate the Trinity doctrine. It is without body, parts or passions, as the Trinity dictates that the three persons in the Godhead are all made out of one indivisible substance, this substance cannot change at all. He cannot change in emotion, and He cannot change His mind.

That is all the Philosopher's god, not the God the Bible describes. The Bible has a God who loved, was jealous, he forgave, became wroth, etc. If he is a God that does not change in himself, and is impassable, how can we possibly engage with Him? With an impassible God, no appeal could be made to Him, for He has no sympathy in our struggle, He is not glad about our success, neither disappointed in our failure. How could prayer change His mind or actions?

Didn't God send Jonah to condemn Nineveh to destruction, but through Nineveh's prayer and fasting, "God repented", "He did it not", did not what "He said that He would do" (Jonah 3:10). Did not God want to destroy Israel and make a nation out of Moses, until Moses, "besaught" God, so then God "repented of the evil, which he thought to do" (Exo 32:10-14).

Whenever the Bible explains God's unchanging nature, it is nothing like the Greeks describe in an absolute sense, it's a relative sense. Instead, it describes a God that is consistent, honest, just and merciful (Num 23:19; 1 Sa 15:29) in contrast to mankind relatively. God keeps his promises even though men break their promises (Isa 40:28; Exo 34:9-10). Not even the scriptures are subject to finality.

Quote

Acts 13:33 relates the resurrection to being begotten ("God hath fulfilled the same unto us 
their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second 
psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee").

Christ is not begotten with a heavenly mother here.

1 Peter 1:3 says, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according 
to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ from the dead".

We are not begotten again with a heavenly mother.

Philemon 1:10 says, "I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds. 
This is similar to 1 Corinthians 4:15 ("For though ye have ten thousand instructors in 
Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the 
gospel").

A heavenly mother is not involved in the begetting.

Then we have John 3:16 ("For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"). Some translations 
have "eternal life". The terms are synonymous.

Here's another – 1 John 4:9 ("In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that 
God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him"

His Mother, the feminine Holy Spirit of Wisdom came upon Mary to have her conceive, Wisdom was the agent that aids in miraculous births of Israelite women, including the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus the Christ, as Jesus said "Wisdom is justified of Her children" (Matthew 11:19). Matthew also said in The Gospel of the Hebrews, quoted by Eusebius, after Jesus' baptism the Holy Spirit came down a dove “The Savior says: ‘Even so did my Mother, the Holy Spirit, take me by one of my hairs and carry me away to the great mountain Tabor.'” Wisdom is the inhuman woman in Revelations 12, She is not Mary, because she is not human, a goddess who possesses 12 stars on her head, robes of the sun and the moon at her feet, and wings, giving birth to the "man child", recognized as Christ (Rev 12:1-6). 

Quote

Jesus is the creator. He created Lucifer, Michael, and the other angels.  

Where? The spirits and angels aren't created in Genesis. Satan and Michael is classically interpreted as predating Creation based on Revelations 12.

Quote

Do you view that statement as meaning Jesus was made (was formed) into a God?  If yes, how 
and when?

Yes. When Christ became man in the incarnation, he lay aside that "all power" for a time. 
 
In military analogy, this would be like a General removing his uniform to wear civilian 
clothes, laying aside his power and authority. He is still a General but he is temporally 
suspending that prerogative – unless he decides to exercise some of it while in civilian 
clothes.

The scriptures allude to this.

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God [the 
NIV has "Who, being in very nature God] thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But 
made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the 
likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient 
unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and 
given him a name which is above every name" (Philippians 2:5–9).

Being highly exalted does not mean Christ was formed (made) into a God.

Hebrews 1:4 states he "became" or was made a God before creating the world: "So He became as much superior to the angels as the name He has inherited is superior to theirs." The word "became" (Greek genomai) can be translated as "was made," or "came to be."

This is not the Resurrection, Hebrews 1 its taken from ancient account of an Angel that was born in the beginning and made a God. It quotes Long Deuteronomy that was deleted by the Jews to hide that there were other gods in scripture. The verse in Hebrews 1:6 reads: “He says, ‘And let all the angels of God worship Him,'” (Hebrews 1:6) is from Deuteronomy 32:43; in the Septuagint LXX "let all the angels of God worship him..." in 4Q44 Deuteronomy "bow down to him, all gods".

Quote

How can the LDS Heavenly Father and Mother die?

Psalm 82:1–4 says, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 
How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Defend the poor and 
fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out 
of the hand of the wicked".

How are these Gods judging unjustly, accepting the persons of the wicked, failing to defend 
the poor and fatherless, and not doing justice to the afflicted and needy?

How are human judges in Israel the gods and rulers of all the nations as an inheritance from the Most High God?

Deuteronomy 32 is the backdrop to Psalm 82. Psalm 82's council of gods are being judged for their corrupt administration over their inherited nations, and the judges of Israel do not rule the nations. The last verse implores for the God of Israel to rise up and “inherit” all the other nations. Yahweh was not the God of everyone, only Israelites. The lemma behind “inherit” (נחל) is precisely the same lemma used to describe the punitive judgment of the nations at the tower of Babel, when Elyon allotted the nations to the sons of God as an inheritance. Yahweh was allotted the people of Israel, those same divine beings were allotted the nations that he was not inheriting. 

If we begin at Deut 4:19-20 and then work toward chapter 32, the “host of heaven” is identified as “other gods” Israel was not allotted to but worshipped by Israelites in defiance of Deut 4:19-20. They were real lord gods whom they had not known and whom he had not allotted to them. Later in Deut 32:17, are identified as demons, so you can't have it both ways, fake and demons. You cannot deny their reality, at least if you really care about getting your beliefs about the spiritual world from the Bible. These other gods are not mere idols, pieces of wood and stone, since demons are not wood and stone.

The Judges of Israel are never called gods. The most familiar argument is elders of Israel are called gods in Exodus but is a farcical modern Orthodox Jewish attempt to preserve late ideas about monotheism, which the Hebrew Bible doesn't teach.

Exodus 22:6-8 [Eng., 22:7-9] from the JPS Tanakh: "6 When a man gives money or goods to another for safekeeping, and they are stolen from the man’s house—if the thief is caught, he shall pay double; 7 if the thief is not caught, the owner of the house shall come near (נקרב) to God (האלהים) that he has not laid hands on the other’s property. 8 In all charges of misappropriation—pertaining to an ox, an *ss, a sheep, a garment, or any other loss, whereof one party alleges, “This is it”—the case of both parties shall come before God (האלהים): he whom God (אלהים (declares guilty (ירשיען) shall pay double to the other.•

There is nothing in Exodus that compels us to understand אלהים or האלהים as referring to the elders, this passage can quite readily refer to the God of Israel. There is nothing saying the men appointed by Moses are actually called אלהים or האלהים in the text. Thus no support for seeing human אלהים in Psalm 82 because of Exodus.

The Death of gods In Psalm 82 verses 6-7 is actually the Yahwehist psalmist calling for the real gods to suffer the loss of their immortality: "I said, You are gods (אלהים), even sons of the Most High (עליון בני), all of you; nevertheless, like humans you will die, and fall like any prince.‟

Apparently, their punishment is the loss of immortality, resulting in death or becoming mortal humans, means they are not mere humans, they must have been once immortal beings, possessing a once divine status, if they will become mortal only due to a punishment.

Quote

... But no scripture is in harmony with the LDS teaching 

... I don't mind embracing and acting upon words that my pastor prophesies in his sermons or 
if someone like Philip has four daughters who prophesy (Acts 21:8–9).  But my spidey–senses 
go on high alert if and when my pastor or these four daughters were to create and distribute 
false teachings.

Prophecy is certainly not its own interpreter; prophecy is not a matter for the private interpretation of its readers; it came by prophesy, and only prophets can interpret it. (2 Peter 1:19) "The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power [authority]", (1 Corinthians 4:20) not in words but in real authority.

Prophetic scriptural understanding is a prerequisite to correct interpretation, because true spiritual messages are at times the opposite of what we'd think of as common sense; therefore many times what we think we know just isn’t so.

Consider how it is we can obtain life from death (John 12:24), surrender equals victory (Phil.4:11), weakness becomes strength (2 Cor.12:9), humility is power (1 Peter 5:5) we are fortunate to have misfortune (Ps 119:67, 71, 75). God uses the foolish to confound the wise (1 Cor. 1:27). There is no other way to know of the truth and divinity of a spiritual thing than by receiving a revelation of it.

We see many examples of prophets being at odds with past written scripture in scripture. Jeremiah 36 recounts He dictated to his scribe Baruch everything that God had said to Jeremiah. But the Scribes were saying under their new regime that obeying the past scriptures ("the law") will cause Jerusalem to prosper, it won't fall (Jer 27:9), so were troubled by Jeremiah’s prophesying contrary to the scriptural promises, Babylon shall conquer Jerusalem, and so the scroll was thrown in the fireplace (Jeremiah 36:22-26) and they sought to execute the Jeremiah for saying that Jerusalem will not prosper, it will fall (Jer 26:1-19) Jeremiah rewrote his book, "and there were added besides unto them many like words." (Jer. 36:32). 

The "word of the Lord" is not the written scriptures (books of "the law") especially when the texts were transmitted by the "lying" and vain "pen of scribes", rather the word of the Lord it is the spoken oracles that are uttered by prophets (Jer 8:8-9). The scriptures are not a substitute for authority.

Therefore, Jeremiah explicitly preaches against the finality of the scriptures as a replacement for revelations from Prophets which can supersede the scripture, especially because scribes are not prophets, they even alter the scriptures (Jer 8:8-9) while claiming to be "wise"/inspired following the scripture, while rejecting the "word [davar] of the Lord", by which he means the spoken oracles of the prophets like himself. The scribes were usurpers seeking to alter and thus control the words in scriptures, and outlaw all new words and innovations that deviate from the written words.

Acts 7, the Apostle Stephen’s saw a vision of God the Father, was beyond all the Jewish Priests and Scribes of his day, they held to their interpretation of the scriptures that made Stephan’s testimony contrary to the plain language in the scriptures The law said: "Men cannot see God and live". Therefore, plainly, this man who has seen God, or claims to have seen God, and must then die according to the plain reading of scripture. The High Priests of the Sadducees and Pharisees that heard Stephen’s claim to see God, screamed, plugged up their ears, cast him out and stoned him to death for the great crime against scriptural law that has clearly been misinterpreted by uninspired men (Acts 7:57-58).

Scribes who closed of the Old Testament canon replaced the prophets, claiming for themselves the position as the way to the kingdom of God, whose word was the word of God, so long as what they said is from the book. Without prophets, that is all you have, you've forsaken the prophets for the institutions of men, harkening to the dictates self-described uninspired interpreters, whose predecessors rather murder prophets than to let God speak, if it is against what is already written. Now that is blasphemy.

"Carnegie: People will come from all over, they'll do exactly what I tell 'em... if the words... are from the book. It's happened before and it'll happen again" ~ The Book of Eli

Edited January 7, 2025 by Pyreaux

[theplains]

On 1/6/2025 at 5:57 PM, Pyreaux said:

Wow, so long. Forgive if I jump in the conversation and if I miss some context from skim reading.

Wow. Long indeed.

I'm currently involved in a very long dialogue with InCognitus so I will try to address some
of what you said in time, but I can't make any promises.
 

On 1/6/2025 at 5:57 PM, Pyreaux said:

His Mother, the feminine Holy Spirit of Wisdom came upon Mary to have her conceive, Wisdom was the agent that aids in miraculous births of Israelite women, including the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus the Christ, as Jesus said "Wisdom is justified of Her children" (Matthew 11:19). Matthew also said in The Gospel of the Hebrews, quoted by Eusebius, after Jesus' baptism the Holy Spirit came down a dove “The Savior says: ‘Even so did my Mother, the Holy Spirit, take me by one of my hairs and carry me away to the great mountain Tabor.'” Wisdom is the inhuman woman in Revelations 12, She is not Mary, because she is not human, a goddess who possesses 12 stars on her head, robes of the sun and the moon at her feet, and wings, giving birth to the "man child", recognized as Christ (Rev 12:1-6). 

 

May I ask what faith group you are part of?

[Pyreaux]

17 hours ago, theplains said:

Wow. Long indeed.

I'm currently involved in a very long dialogue with InCognitus so I will try to address some
of what you said in time, but I can't make any promises.
 

May I ask what faith group you are part of?

I'm LDS. I didn't always believe this, it was maybe 15 years ago. I wouldn't today if I didn't read outside LDS materials or LDS apologetics (two different things). LDS church seems to ignore exploring the subject doctrinally, but whenever they aren't liberally espousing or expanding on a revealed doctrine, they conservatively hold to traditional understandings for everything else, like they take the populist Protestant opinion the Eastern Orthodox Church 'Lady Wisdom/Sophia' tradition is weird or how John in KJV English seems to promote the idea of the Holy Spirit being male.

In sources, "Wisdom" is sometimes personified and understood in ways that align with the Holy Spirit. Proverbs 8 and other Bible Wisdom Literature speaks of Wisdom in a way that can be seen as a divine reality, depicted as participating in creation and in the ordering of the world, and some Christian Fathers, such as St. Gregory of Nyssa, have interpreted these passages as the Holy Spirit's action. "Wisdom" is closely associated with the Holy Spirit in certain apocryphal or deuterocanonical books, such as the Wisdom of Solomon.

In reading Margaret Barker books about the Ugaritic Texts and ancient Israelites believing in Asherah (She Who Treads on the Sea, like Spirit of God does in Genesis), Goddess of Wisdom, Wife of El, who gave birth to the Sons of El, including Yahweh and his wife Anath, and after I sorted the evidence, I've come around. I actually think the Hebrew language promotes the Spirit as always feminine, and the Greek language is actually neutral to the point that we are only arguing about a preferred preference of its proper pronouns (*excuse the spitting). It hit me, once I found it makes sense, if I infused this knowledge into LDS doctrine, it makes even more sense. Joseph Smith never claimed to see the Holy Ghost, and yet bizarrely we traditionally believe in a divine feminine, that God the Father and Jesus should have wives, not really by scripture, but by logic if humans require spouses for exaltation (unless the Godhead has its own rules, and it could, I can be wrong) we assume they must too. 

I do think God the Father and Mother creates spirit bodies and angels (albeit from intelligences) but then some were born, they adopted some, as "begotten" "sons of God" and "gods", they already existed. Just like the Lord and Lady, Jesus and the Holy Ghost, adopt humans as sons of God, they join the genos of gods as begotten children though they already exist, also. You can both already exist and be born. You are born the day you were adopted. A spirit or angel might not be a god in every attribute, but they are a god, merely by being adopted. Human Davidic kings and the royal Christian were adopted by the Lord, as sons of God became gods, immortals, not in their present form, but in the same sense someone claims they are "saved", they aren't saved from the grave and hell yet.

Edited January 16, 2025 by Pyreaux

[theplains]

On 1/15/2025 at 3:16 PM, Pyreaux said:

Just like the Lord and Lady, Jesus and the Holy Ghost, adopt humans as sons of God, they join the genos of gods as begotten children though they already exist,

Is the Lady (the Holy Ghost) a daughter of Heavenly Father?

[Pyreaux]

12 minutes ago, theplains said:

Is the Lady (the Holy Ghost) a daughter of Heavenly Father?

Simply speaking. yes. If that raises more questions about what her relationship to Jesus. She might be composed of multiple beings with multiple roles.

Scholars like Dr. Ralphel Patai have been divided over the controversial figure of Asherah in the Bible. She was thought to be merely linked to Canaanite worship, but its become an open question as to whether Asherah is truly a foreign influence, in light of the early and wide spread veneration of Asherah by the Israelites. Now, I don't mean to favor of the Canaanite version of Asherah, but there is so much crossover between her and the Biblical Holy Spirit. Pre-Israelite Canaanite language is the closest thing to Biblical Hebrew that exists.

The Ugartic texts, there are multiple female characters, Ba'al had a wife and sister named Anath (KTU 1:13:V:30). The one "who conceives but does not bare", that is always fruitful but eternally a virgin. The virgin 'nursing mother' of kings (KTU 1:15:II:26-28). Ba'al and Anath are the Children of El and Atirat. Like the Father and the Son, the Mother and Daughter functioned like a single deity, of one Mother Asherah.

In the Wisdom of Solomon she appears in two forms, Spirit-Wisdom and Wisdom herself, for Wisdom has a Spirit "in" Her, "Wisdom, the artisan of it all, taught me, for in her is a spirit", though at the same time, "she is one" (Wisdom of Solomon 7:22). 

Now, in Proverbs, "wisdom" is sometimes pluralized, "[hakmot (H#2454) wisdoms, many wise (female)]" (Prov 1:20, 24-28; 9:1), much like how sometimes the male elohim is a plural, and like the elohim, wisdom could be comprised of a unified lot of multiple beings. Female spiritual patrons of multiple nations.

It seems to me, that the Biblical Asherah idols for Yahweh and Ba'al in Israel weren't depicting their mother Asherah, but to their sister-wife, Anath (meaning "Womb"/"Wife"), because Asherah was their mother not their wife, she is the wife of El Elyon. The Spirit of Wisdom is Wisdom's daughter and Yahweh's sister.

The discovery of the Kuntillat 'Ajrud pitho (jars) from the north east Sinai, 3 foot high jars from 800 B.C. was inscribed "may you be blessed by Yahweh and by his Asherah", and another inscription like it was found on the same site. And in Khirbet al-Qom west of Herbron was the inscription "Blessed be Uriah by Yahweh and by his Asherah" (John Day, Journal of Biblical Studies [1985] p391-392, 394). These inscriptions show that the popular consensus among the worshippers of Yahweh, before King Josiah's reform in 621 B.C., was that Asherah was Yahweh's wife, "His Asherah". Now, the Hebrew of the Hosea 14:8-9, "I am like a green fir tree [ani 'aniti wa'ashurenu (H#7488)]" doesn't make any sense, but based on the Hebrew inscriptions on these jars, "His Asherah [wa'Asherato]", it seems likely what Hosea quote God as saying was "I am his Anath and his Asherah [ani Anato wa'Asherato]".

Isaiah saw an alter of the Lord in the midst of Egypt, inhabited by people who spoke Canaanite but worshipped Yahweh (Isa 19:19). South of Egypt is an isle on the Nile where the ancient ruins of Yeb rest (Elephantine Island). It is there that an ancient Israelite Temple was discovered, and an Aramaic Papyri, recording that these people were Israelites, that were called the "Qemant", who were writing correspondences to the High Priest of Jerusalem. They possessed the priesthood, built the temple there, and set up other pillar temples, and prayed under sacred trees. They called God "Adara" similar to the Hebrew word for 'glorious one', a God who appears in human form. They made temple offerings to "Yahu", a form of the name "Yahweh" in Hebrew, and they also refer to an "Anath-Yahu" this would be an Israelite version of Anath, indicating that she is the sister-wife of Yahweh.

Multiple female aspects are seen in other related post-Biblical religions. The Aramaic translations, the Targum Onkelos, in the first century first appears the term "Shakhinah", Glory. To the Kabalistic Jews, they refer to Wisdom as the Shekhinah, a term used to refer to multiple female beings or aspects, such as among the Ten Sephroth (Ten Angel-like Aspects of God), "She [Malkhut] is sometimes called daughter, sometimes sister, and here She is called mother. And in fact She is all of these" (Zohar 3:100b). God is a King, and the Shekninah is a "daughter, sister, wife, and mother" (Sefer ha-Bahir 63).

[InCognitus]

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

keep in mind the way that the Lord gathered his people the first time (at the Exodus out of Egypt and gathering at the temple of Mount Sinai to make covenants) prior to them being led into the lands promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  And now we are experiencing when “the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people”.  There is no reason to expect that the gathering the second time would follow a different pattern than the first time.

I agree in the Lord gathering the remnant of his people.  But like the first time, the second 
time is referring to literal Israelites. That is the context of Isaiah 11.

I agree completely.  That is the whole point, and what I have been saying all along.

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

It is not 
specifically a reference to Gentiles who join the church or who are declared to be in the 
literal lineage of Israel through a patriarchal blessing

Or it is. 

Where is scattered Israel?   They are among the Gentile nations.  You say this can’t be talking about people from the Gentile nations who come unto Christ and have their literal Israelite lineage made known unto them, but on what basis?   Because you don’t believe it? 

We already discussed this.

Can literal Gentiles be literal Israelites?   Yes, they can.  I discussed this in my post on 11/14/2024:  A literal Israelite (by blood) can be a literal Gentile (in the political or geographical sense).  And this usage of the word is also demonstrated in the biblical texts.

So, you can believe whatever you want, but the Latter-day Saint understanding of this is completely in harmony with the biblical texts on this matter.  Scattered Israelites (literal Israelites) are among the Gentile nations (they are literal Gentiles, politically and geographically speaking), and as they come unto Christ their identity as Israelites and their lineage is made known to them by the Lord, and they take upon themselves the name of Christ and make covenants with God prior to them being able to return to the lands promised to them. 

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

You never did ask me what ordinances I believe they were performing in the temple.  I don’t believe they were performing any ordinances in the Jewish temple at Jerusalem.  That does not mean they did not perform those ordinances elsewhere, because it is obvious that they did.

What temple ordinances do you believe they were performing elsewhere but not in the temple at 
Jerusalem?

Baptism for the dead (obviously), and all the other temple ordinances we do today.  

There is ample evidence of these things from ancient Christian burials, ancient Christian art, and even in some Christian writings.  But I’m not going to discuss those other things on this board because it requires information about the temple that can’t be discussed here.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

In response to the above, I asked you, “Where does the New Testament say that?”  Meaning, where does it say, “no temple ordinances were required for Gentile and Israelite Christians”?   (It doesn’t).

I mentioned in my last post.

There is nothing in your last post that provides any biblical references saying that no temple ordinances were required for Gentile and Israelite Christians.  So where does the New Testament say that no temple ordinances were required for Gentile and Israelite Christians?

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

The pillars in Revelation 3:12 are both men and women who overcame.  These are those who 
are with Christ in his kingdom (3:21).

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

 So Revelation 3:12 is confirmation of the continued importance of the temple and those who serve in it as it pertains to New Testament Christianity.

"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more 
out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which 
is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my 
new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches". 

This is about the one temple in heaven, not the temple in Jerusalem or LDS temples on earth. 

There is nothing in the context of Revelation 3:12 to indicate that this temple is in heaven.  That is simply your belief that you are reading into the text. 

Elsewhere in the book of Revelation there is a distinction between a temple in heaven and temples that are not in heaven.  For example, in Revelation 11:1-2, John is told to measure the temple (which harkens back to Ezekiel chapters 40-48), but he is also told to “measure” those that worship therein.  John is not being asked to take their measurements as if he is fitting them for clothing, rather this use of “measure” is to evaluate the people involved.  This is how the exact same Greek word is used in 2 Corinthians 10:12. It makes no sense for John to be asked to evaluate people who are already in heaven, so this must be an earthly temple being described.

And in Revelation 14:15-17, the temple is mentioned twice.  The first time it says, “another angel came out of the temple” (verse 15).  And the second time it says, “another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven” (verse 17).  Why is a distinction made here unless the first temple mentioned is not in heaven?

So, your assumption (and it is clearly an assumption) that the temple mentioned in Revelation 3:12 is in heaven is invalid.  And the message is clear in any case:  Those who overcome participate in God’s temple, they are made “pillars” in God’s temple, proving that God’s temple is STILL relevant and important to New Testament Christianity.  

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

There is no mention of a temple existing in the city of New Jerusalem before or after it 
comes down from heaven.

Where does scripture say anything about the lack of a temple in the New Jerusalem that is in heaven before it comes down from heaven?

As for the lack of a temple in the New Jerusalem that comes down from heaven, that is the whole point of this part of our conversation.  

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

So if temples no longer serve any purpose in Christianity and you no longer “build temples because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost” (as you suppose), then why does the biblical text go out of its way to point out the fact that the city of new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven after the earth is celestialized has no temple in it?  (Revelation 21:22).  Why is that even noteworthy if temples were done away since the time of Christ as you seem to think?

The Book of Revelation is referring to the temple in heaven, not in the city of New Jerusalem 
that comes down from heaven, nor the temple in Jerusalem on earth. Christian men and women did 
not serve as Melchizedek or Levitical priests in the Jerusalem temple before it was destroyed.

You posted several denials above, but again you still haven’t answered the question! 

Obviously the temple was important to New Testament Christians from the time of Christ, and the temple will continue to be important to true Christianity all the way through the Millennium.  And we know this because when the earth is finally celestialized (after all the temple work is completed during the Millennium) and the city of New Jerusalem comes down from heaven, it is then and ONLY THEN that it becomes noteworthy that no temple is needed therein.  The absence of a temple in that city signals the completion of the Lord’s work on earth in that regard, and the special mention of the absence of a temple in that city indicates that the presence of temples and temple work was important prior to that time.  (Otherwise, why point it out?)  The purposes for having temples on earth are complete only at that time and not before.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

The Lord doesn’t distinguish between “spiritual Israel” (as you call it) and the remnant of the house of Joseph.  Joseph was to become a “multitude of Gentiles” (nations) as the scripture says, and it is to that promise from God that the inheritance is given.

Yes. Scripture says Joseph received a double portion, but no priesthood (Ezekiel 47:13–14,21; 
48:29).

The priesthood promises were through Abraham’s seed.  We already discussed this.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

You forget that “their prophets” (in a major part of the Bible) were prophets pertaining only to Judea, not the northern tribes.  So “their prophets” would have no concern about Ephraim and Manasseh and any inheritance of theirs in the Americas.  “Their prophets” had their hands full with problems of their own in their part of the world.

But the prophets pertaining to the northern tribes were disbursed throughout the world, and their writings aren’t contained in the Bible.  And God doesn’t forget his people.

The northern kingdom of Israel had its share of prophets who delivered messages from the 
Lord. These include Elijah, Elisha, Amos, Hosea, and Jonah (2 Kings 14:25).

Yes, that is exactly the point I was making.  They had their own prophets.  And when Israel was scattered, the prophets among the northern tribes went with them.  We no longer hear much about those scattered tribes in the biblical texts after that time because the remaining prophets were focused on the problems going on with those who remained in the land with them.

But God doesn’t forget his people.  Just because the Bible doesn’t contain any further record of those people and their prophets after they were scattered, it doesn’t mean that God didn’t continue to speak to them through his prophets, and it doesn’t mean Jesus ignored them and only thought about the Gentiles (as you suppose) when he talked about visiting his “other sheep” of the house of Israel.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Who are the “seed of Abraham” or “children of Abraham” according to the Bible?

The seed of Abraham has two aspects: literal and spiritual.  Literal descendants (physical; 
see qualifier below) and the faithful in Christ (Galatians 3:29, ESV, "And if you are Christ's, 
then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise").

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

 God told Abraham, “Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:  For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.  And 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 13:14–16)

Who do you think God had in mind when he said to Abraham that “thy seed” shall inherit that land forever, and also “thy seed” shall be numbered as the dust of the earth?

This is a reference to literal seed inheriting the land.

Where does it say this pertains to Abraham’s “literal seed”?

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

That inheritance was conditional 
as post–Abrahamic scripture informs us.

Conditional upon what?

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

Abraham, with another wife named Keturah, had six additional children besides Isaac and 
Ishmael (Genesis 25:1–2).  The reckoning of seed was through Isaac (Genesis 21:12; Hebrews 
11:18).

Yes, and why was the seed determined through Isaac?   Genesis 17:21: “But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.”  The children of the covenant are the ones that receive the promises:

Romans 9:7–9: “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.  8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.”

Galatians 4:28–31: “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.  29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.  30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.  31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”

So what exactly is the difference?

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Jacob 5:21, 23, and 25 refers back to verses 8 and 13-14, where the Lord (Jesus) of the vineyard (the world) cut off branches from the tame olive tree (Israel) and “hid the natural branches of the tame olive tree in the nethermost part of the vineyard”.  They represent unnamed tribes of scattered Israel to various parts of the world, in all different conditions, and the Lord goes to visit them (Jesus was sent only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”). 

Verse 43 likely refers to the Nephites and Lamanites in their fallen and apostate condition.

When I read Jacob 5, there are only 3 scattered branches.

This is an allegory, not a literal depiction.  The different areas of the vineyard are representative of various parts of the world and how well scattered Israel does in those types of areas, and it doesn’t mean there are only three groups of people.

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

First: Jacob 5:21, to the poorest 
of the entire vineyard. Second: Jacob 5:23, to a place even poorer than the first, really 
making the second the poorest of the vineyard. Third: Jacob 5:25, a good land, later described 
as choice land above all other lands in the vineyard (5:43).

How are the Nephites and Lamanites viewed as the last scattered branch prior to the destruction 
of Jerusalem?

Their scattering is depicted in verses 13-14 of Jacob 5.  

Nephi recognized this:  1 Nephi 10:12–14:  “Yea, even my father spake much concerning the Gentiles, and also concerning the house of Israel, that they should be compared like unto an olive tree, whose branches should be broken off and should be scattered upon all the face of the earth.  13 Wherefore, he said it must needs be that we should be led with one accord into the land of promise, unto the fulfilling of the word of the Lord, that we should be scattered upon all the face of the earth. 14 And after the house of Israel should be scattered they should be gathered together again; or, in fine, after the Gentiles had received the fulness of the Gospel, the natural branches of the olive tree, or the remnants of the house of Israel, should be grafted in, or come to the knowledge of the true Messiah, their Lord and their Redeemer.”

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

The Jaredites, for one.

According to the Book of Mormon narrative, the Jaredite nation is utterly destroyed – only 
Coriantumr survived. There is no indication the Nephites met or knew of any other living 
indigenous people groups.

Actually, the people of Zarahemla discovered Coriantumr at some unspecified date after their arrival in the land (see Omni 1:21), and it was sometime between 323 and 130 B.C that Mosiah discovered the people of Zarahemla.  So the full nation of the Jaredites was active and alive and well in the land at the time Lehi and his family arrived at around 589 B.C., and they could have remained so for as much as 300 years.  

And Ether 10:19-21 describes migrations of the Jaredites into the land southward, and at that time it says, “the whole face of the land northward was covered with inhabitants” (verse 21).  So there is a vast population described in the land, and some of them went south to inhabit other areas not described in any of the final battles.

And there is a huge difference between the “utter destruction” of the “Jaredite nation”, and the destruction of all the people who descended from the Jaredites.  The “Jaredite nation” centered around the kingdom possessed by Coriantumr’s family (“Coriantumr was king over all the land” – Ether 12:1).  The prophet Ether prophesied, not that every single Jaredite would be completely wiped out, but rather that if Coriantumr “would repent, and all his household, the Lord would give unto him his kingdom and spare the people – Otherwise they should be destroyed, and all his household save it were himself.” (Ether 13:20-21)  So the destruction had to do with Coriantumr and his household (they were his “people”) and the “Jaredite nation” was related to his kingdom, not every single Jaredite that was on the face of the land.

The fact that the Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites had extended contact with the Jaredites is attested by the “Reuse of Jaredite Names Among the Mulekites, Lamanites and Nephites” (special thanks to Robert F. Smith for that).

And, there are many other indications that there were other people in the lands already.  The Jaredites are just the most obvious.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

As for the seed of Abraham, in the book of Ecclesiasticus (in the Apocrypha), it is says of Abraham: “Abraham was a great father of many people: in glory was there none like unto him; who kept the law of the most High, and was in covenant with him: he established the covenant in his flesh; and when he was proved, he was found faithful. Therefore he assured him by an oath, that he would bless the nations in his seed, and that he would multiply him as the dust of the earth, and exalt his seed as the stars, and cause them to inherit from sea to sea, and from the river unto the utmost part of the land.”  (Ecclesiasticus 44:19–21)

His seed through Isaac or through all the sons Abraham had?

The “covenant” was through Isaac (Genesis 17:21) and “the children of promise” (Galatians 4:28–31). 

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

We don't know all of what Jesus taught in that forty–day period.

No, but we do know that Jesus obviously didn’t teach them to go to the Gentiles at that time, for certainly at least one of the apostles would have remembered that.  (They couldn’t all be that dense).

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

"Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15) does not 
mean "Only go to the Gentiles".  "To the whole creation" means "all people".

The apostles and disciples, due to their religious upbringing, may have still felt salvation 
was only for the Jews even though Jesus had told them to go to the entire world.  Jesus did 
not specifically say to go into all the world but initially exclude the Gentiles.  The "great 
commission" started on a larger scale after persecution arose and scattered the disciples.

"Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord 
Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?  When they heard these things, they 
held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted 
repentance unto life".

They did not come to realize that now was the time to start preaching to the Gentiles. They 
came to realize that Gentiles too would be included in the New Covenant. It was a similar 
pattern in the Old Testament. God only dealt with the Israelite nation by giving them the 
Mosaic Law but Gentiles living within her borders could still benefit from salvation by 
adhering to it. The temple, for instance, even had a dedicated court for the Gentiles. 

The blessing to Gentiles had already been prophesied in the Old Testament.

"I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep 
thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6);

"And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes 
of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the 
Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth" (Isaiah 49:6).

It foretells that Christ's mission will extend to the Gentiles, bringing salvation to them 
as well.

Isaiah 56:6–8 speaks of the sons of the stranger (the Gentiles) who join themselves to the 
Lord, serving Him, loving His name, and keeping the Sabbath, indicating they will be accepted 
and become part of His people.

There is no question that the scriptures foretold that the time would come when the Gentiles would have the gospel preached to them as well.  But quoting those prophesies does not prove the timing on when Jesus told the apostles to start preaching to the Gentiles, which was not until Acts chapter 10.

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

As for Paul, Christ had already appeared to him and chose him to bear His name to the Gentiles 
(Acts 9:15).  Paul knew to go to the Gentiles before Peter knew not to view the Gentiles as 
unclean.

Jesus prophesied to Paul that he would be sent to the Gentiles, yes.  But you’ll notice that Paul didn’t start preaching the gospel to the Gentiles until after Peter received his vision.

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

Then we have Philip. He was already preaching to the Samaritans (a mixture of both Israelites 
and Gentiles) before Christ's appearance to Paul (Acts 8:5–12) and before Peter's vision.

"But the voice answered a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, do not call 
common".

Many Israelites in the Old Testament married non-Israelites, and it didn’t disqualify them as Israelites.  The Samaritans, being literal Israelites, would qualify for teaching the gospel at that time.  Even though the Samaritans were despised and avoided at first, they still qualified as Israelites.  

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

The cleansing is tied to Christ's atoning work, which made salvation and the blessings of 
the gospel accessible to all people, not just the Jews.   The blessings of the gospel were 
prophesied long before Peter was born. I provided several examples from Isaiah above.

Again, the prophesies about Christ’s atoning work applying to all the world is not in question here.  The question is on the timing of when the apostles were told to start preaching the gospel to the Gentiles.  That didn’t happen until Acts chapter 10.

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

If I'm not mistaken, you believe the "other sheep" of John 10:16 are the Nephites, based on 
3 Nephi 15:21 ("And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: 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").

You are mistaken.  The “other sheep” is based on Jesus saying “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”  (Matthew 15:24).  3 Nephi 15:21 supports the biblical text on this.

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

But the disciples in Judea wouldn't have understood what Jesus meant because they were not 
aware of the Nephites.

That’s right, the disciples in Judea didn’t understand.  They weren’t looking at the big picture regarding their place among all the tribes of Israel, and that Jesus was sent to all of them.

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

The truth is clearer if you believe the biblical explanation.

I agree completely, with the actual biblical explanation being what Jesus said: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”  (Matthew 15:24).  Your explanation contradicts Jesus’ own words.

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

In the course of their life, 
they are made aware of the Gentiles being these other sheep, with Christ as the Shepherd of 
the sheepfold – the Gentiles being the ones afar off and the Jews being the ones who were 
nigh (Ephesians 2:17).

You tried this last time. But you are taking later adaptations and projecting them back in time to when the gospel was only being taken to the house of Israel.  The Gentiles were adopted in, but that came later.  

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

The Gentiles were not adopted into the fold until later and Jesus did not go to them personally (he sent his apostles to do that).

1 Nephi 22:25 and Alma 5:38–39 refer to Christ as the Shepherd, but the Gentiles are not 
symbolized as sheep in the imagery of the sheepfold in the Book of Mormon.  Other than the 
sole Jaredite survivor Coriantumr, there are no Gentiles mentioned in the Book of Mormon 
for the Nephites to preach to.

What does this have to do with anything we are talking about with respect to Jesus saying he only went to the lost sheep of the house of Israel?

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

While Christ did not specifically go to Gentile nations in his mortal ministry, I provided 
examples of Gentiles who heard Christ's voice during that ministry.

The two recorded examples in the scriptures of Jesus having a brief interaction with Gentiles during his mortal ministry (Matthew 8:5-13, 15:21-28) don’t stand up to the full ministry that Jesus was referring to where he said “other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice”.  Jesus said this during the third year of his ministry, and he spoke of it as having a future fulfillment.  None of the Gentiles (as a “fold”) ever “heard his voice” in a future ministry.  Rather, he went only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, as he stated.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe that the apostles and prophets in Bible times were infallible?  

Do you believe they [the apostles and prophets in the Bible] never taught or believed anything that turned out to be false?

Yes. They made mistakes.  But I recall only the prophet Aaron leading the Israelites to 
worship the golden calf for a brief moment.  Peter, on the other hand, revealed his hypocrisy 
on the matter of eating food and was rebuked by Paul.

Maybe you can provide a few more examples from the Bible, or LDS canon, or apply the same 
standard to LDS apostles and prophets where you believe they led the Latter–day Saints 
astray.

Apostles and prophets making mistakes isn’t exactly what I was asking about.   I asked if you believe the apostles and prophets in the Bible never taught or believed anything that turned out to be false (whether it was recorded in the Bible or not).   I think Peter’s hypocrisy is a good example of what I am asking about, because that reflects on his prejudices and lack of understanding.  

Do you believe that it was possible for the apostles or prophets to believe or teach anything that turned out to be false?  Or do you believe that God controlled their thinking so that they always perfectly understood what he was teaching them so they could also teach it to others perfectly?  

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Believing or teaching some incorrect doctrines does not constitute apostasy.  I am quite certain that both you and I believe in some incorrect doctrines or interpretations of scripture, because our understanding is incomplete.  But that doesn’t mean we are in apostasy.  The same goes for the church teaching a doctrine that is false and corrected by the Lord later on.  The church did not go into apostasy, the doctrine was corrected.

People who believe in false teachings remain in apostasy until they switch to believing in 
true teachings.

Ok, so according to your definition, you are in apostasy and will remain in apostasy until you die, and then you will realize that you believed in some false teachings and were in apostasy.  I can say this with certainty because I know that neither you nor I have a perfect (complete) understanding of all the things of God, and our imperfect understanding leads us to have false ideas about God or his teachings.

But I don’t accept your explanation of apostasy, because: (A) That’s not the correct meaning of the word “apostasy”, and (B) I know that God knows our limitations and won’t hold us accountable for our imperfect understanding.  I believe God knows our hearts and understands the desires of our hearts, and he doesn’t consider our honest misunderstandings as “apostasy”.

The correct definition of apostasy is:   Defection from truth, forsaking truth (using the definition of the Greek word apostasia as found in 2 Thessalonians 2:3).  Or if you want to use the Merriam-Webster definition, it means:  (1) an act of refusing to continue to follow, obey, or recognize a religious faith, (2) abandonment of a previous loyalty : defection.  (See my post on 12/23/2019 for examples of how the Greek word ἀποστασία (apostasía) is used in the Septuagint and the New Testament).

The New Testament Christian church fell into apostasy when they rejected the leadership appointed by the apostles and defected from the true teachings that were handed down by the apostles, such as when they changed the identity of the true God into a “homoousious” being comprised of three persons.  That’s the correct meaning of apostasy.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

As Elder Bednar said in the October 2024 General Conference:   

“Apostasy can occur at two basic levels—institutional and individual. At the institutional level, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be lost through apostasy or taken from the earth.”

It seems you are focusing on either the church of Christ being lost or a person choosing to 
leave the Christian faith.   

I am not referring to a total institutional apostasy where all teachings are false or where 
the church of Christ is either destroyed (like the 1997 Gospel Principles taught) or taken 
from the earth. The church of Christ cannot be destroyed.

Where does scripture say the church of Christ on earth cannot be destroyed?

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

 I am referring to "some" 
institutional apostasy caused by false teachings, which indirectly lead to "some" individual 
apostasy when these false teachings are taught and believed.

Like when the apostle Paul believed, and taught others to believe, that the second coming of Christ would come during his lifetime?  Is that the kind of institutional apostasy you mean?

You don’t understand the meaning of apostasy (see above).

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

The LDS teaching/doctrine that Jesus was once an eternal, uncreated intelligence, who then 
became the first spirit child of heavenly parents, who then became a God before coming to 
Earth is not "God who has always been God".

The problem with your objection above is that it is entirely based on your personal beliefs, and not upon any scripture.  There is no place in the Bible that teaches that Jesus has “always been God”, or even that his God has “always been God”.  You mistakenly believe and keep asserting that “everlasting to everlasting” means “eternity to eternity”, but that’s definitely not the way the people who wrote the verse in Hebrew and Greek understood it as I showed in my last post.  You are free to believe that, but that’s not what the Bible teaches.

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

The true God, unlike Joseph Smith's teaching 
about Heavenly Father, is God from eternity to all eternity.

You keep saying this, but you have provided no actual biblical support for such a teaching.  Psalm 90:2 doesn’t teach that God is God from eternity to all eternity.  

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

You have totally misconstrued what that section is teaching, as it has nothing to do with the literal color of their skin on judgement day.  The “whiteness” is a metaphor for their purity and righteousness, and not the literal color of their skin.  

As it says in context: “O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.  Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.”   (Jacob 3:8–9)

In other words the verse is saying, forget your prejudices against them because of their behavior that you associate with their “skin” color, and remember that everyone is judged according to their own deeds (not their skin color).

Jacob 3:8–9 is speaking of physical skin color differences between the Nephites and Lamanites 
and associating it with spiritual cleanliness.  I'm not the one associating it with literal 
skin color. It's the Book of Mormon.  And that is how the seminary manual is associating/
interpreting it as too.

"Mormon prophets and modern prophets have taught it is wrong to revile or look down upon 
people because of the color of their skin (see Jacob 3:9)."

The manual is speaking of physical skin color, and uses the reference to verse 9, which also 
speaks of a physical skin color.  That physical skin color is then associated with the 
judgment in verse 8.

The manual says “It is important to remember that the nature and appearance of this mark are not fully understood. Book of Mormon prophets and modern prophets have taught it is wrong to revile or look down upon people because of the color of their skin (see Jacob 3:9).”

So no, the manual and Jacob 3:8-9 are not necessarily speaking of physical skin color, and the manual uses Jacob 3:9 to prove that point, since that verse is talking about “filthiness” as compared to righteousness (which is the dark vs. white metaphor I was referring to, which is also taught in the Bible).

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Actually, the white/purity metaphor is perfectly in harmony with the Bible:

Psalm 51:7:  “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.”

Daniel 11:35: “And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed."

Daniel 12:10: “Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."

These Old Testament passages are not speaking about one's physical skin color turning white.  

Exactly right, which is just what I said last time.  (Look up the meaning of the word “metaphor”).  And neither are the Book of Mormon passages speaking about one’s physical skin color turning white.

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

If you believe Daniel 12:10 is about physical skin color

If you believe that I believe Daniel 12:10 is about physical skin color, then you didn’t read what I wrote last time.  Go back and read it again.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

I’m referring to the insertion of the word “homoousious” by the emperor Constantine into the Nicene Creed, which redefined how the Father and Son are “one”, making them to be one substance or one being.

How was the Father and the Son being "one" understood before emperor Constantine inserted 
the word "homoousious"?

I have posted this before.  Origen (circa AD 185-254) wrote (in his apologetic response to the accusations of Celsus) 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:  CHURCH FATHERS: Contra Celsus, Book VIII (Origen))

This understanding of how the Father and Son are “one” also helps explain all the other passages in the Bible about the existence of other “gods”, and it dovetails with how the early Christians taught that other gods exist in reality (including men becoming gods) and their teaching that Jesus is the “second God” or “another God” who is subject to the one God and Father who is above all.

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

I don't believe Father and the Son are one being but I believe they are one God.  I don't 
comprehend how.

Jesus explained it quite well in John 17:11 and John 17:20-23, when he prayed for his disciples to be one with him and his Father and with each other in the exact same way Jesus is one with his Father.  It is comprehensible because it is explained by Jesus right in the biblical text.  There’s no need to try to make it mysterious and incomprehensible. 

And the early Christian Father Origen, as quoted above, explained that Jesus and his Father are “one” in the same sense as is taught in Acts 4:32, “them that believed were of one heart and of one soul”.  This is the Biblical explanation of how they are “one God”, and no other explanation is needed.  

The Bible also defines the one God as, “One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Ephesians 4:6).  This “One God and Father of all, who is above all” is also the God and Father of Jesus Christ (John 20:17, Romans 15:6, 1 Corinthians 11:3,  2 Corinthians 11:31, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 1:17; Hebrews 1:8-9, 1 Peter 1:3, Revelation 3:12), and Jesus is even said to be eternally subject to the one God and Father (1 Corinthians 15:28).  Jesus Christ is his Divine Son, he is God by his very nature, and Jesus acts as the agent of the Father, as the mediator to mankind and he is our means of Salvation. Thus he fully represents the true and living God to mankind.  

Similarly, those who become “one” with Jesus and his Father in the exact same way Jesus is one with his Father (John 17:11, 20-23) are those who take upon themselves the name of “God” (Revelation 3:12), sit with God in his throne (Revelation 3:21) and are thus agents of the Father in the same way Jesus represents the Father.  This is why Jesus said to those he chose and sent out, “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me” (Matthew 10:40).  They thus represent the one and only true “God and Father of all, who is above all”.

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

I used to be a Roman Catholic early in life and was never taught the Father and the Son are 
one being.

The word “homoousious” carries with it a Greek philosophy definition that is totally foreign to anything Jesus and the apostles ever taught, and the word is often described as meaning “consubstantial” or “of one essence or substance”.  And that leads to philosophical definitions of the word “consubstantial” and “essence” and “substance”.   As was explained in my earlier posts, those words are often understood to mean that they are “one being”.

But I think you may be confusing “one being” with “one person”, because those are two different philosophical meanings. 

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

This is a great departure from what was taught in Christianity prior to that time, since the early Christians taught that Jesus is “the second God” or “another God”, and that Jesus and his Father are one in unity of will.  And the “homoousious” idea can’t be found anywhere in the Bible.

The Trinity is difficult to comprehend but the scriptures (a sample below) affirms there is 
only one God.

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, 
whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3).

This verse teaches that God the Father is “the only true God”, and Jesus Christ was sent by him.  This doesn’t really support what you are trying to say here.

Rather, this verse demonstrates that Jesus was sent by the one true God (God the Father) to represent him perfectly and to do the Father’s will (being in perfect unity with the Father).  This is exactly how many of the early Christians and Latter-day Saints understand the unity of the Father and the Son.  Also, see my comments on the “one God” above.

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

"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" (Isaiah 43:10).

We’ve already discussed this, over and over.  There’s no such thing as “before” or “after” an eternal God, and therefore the verse is obviously referring to the context of when God is declared to be the God of Israel.

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

"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, 
and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not 
I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God 
beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isaiah 44:6,8).

This is a rhetorical denial statement demonstrating that no other God compares to the one God who is our God.  As Pyreaux has pointed out, and as I have pointed out previously (see my post on 09/19/2023), we can find the same language elsewhere in the Bible where Babylon is saying there is “none else beside me” or “none beside me”, or of various kings in the Bible.  For example:

Babylon:

Isaiah 47:8 “Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children”

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

Are we to believe that no other cities exist other than Babylon?  (That’s how you are interpreting Isaiah 44:6,8).

Kings:

1 Kings 3:12: “Behold, I have done according to thy words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee.”

2 Kings 18:5: “He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him.”

2 Kings 23:25: “And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him.”

Are we to believe no other cities or no other kings existed other than these?  Of course not.  These are all rhetorical statements expressing greatness and incomparability. 

And that’s exactly what is being said in the “beside me there is no God” statements:  No other God compares to the one God above all others. 

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

The early Christians believed Jesus is the second God or “another God”, and that other gods exist just as the Bible teaches, and Latter-day Saints believe that other gods exist, just as the Bible teaches, and neither group is polytheist.

Moses and Satan were both referred to as gods but they were not deities.

Are you suggesting the early Christians referred to Jesus as the “second God” or “another God” in the same way Satan was referred to as god?  Or why even bring this up in response to what I said that you quoted from me above?

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

There are many references to gods in the Bible but they refer to human judges or pagan gods 
(which some people believe are true gods).

The Hebrew word elohim is only translated as "judges" or "judge" five times in the KJV, in Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8; twice in Exodus 22:9, and as "judge" in 1 Samuel 2:25.   And in every one of those places the word should be translated as "God" instead of “judges or “judge” (and if you don’t believe me, check out the ESV translation of those verses that I linked to each of those references).  So “judges” is not even a legitimate translation of the word elohim.  Biblical scholars back this up.

The Hebrew word elohim can refer to pagan gods and other false gods (as it does in verses like Jeremiah 2:11), but it nonsensical to apply such a meaning to verses like Deuteronomy 10:17, where it is said that God is “God of gods and Lord of lords”, or Psalm 86:8 where it says “Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord” (for reasons that have already been discussed). 

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

 God is an eternal being, therefore, nothing can exist “before” or “after” him.  He has existed eternally.

Yes. We keep coming back to this.

I’m not sure why you keep coming back to this, as it is impossible for there to be anything “before” or “after” God, who is eternal.  But for some reason you seem to think it’s possible.  How is it possible?

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

God is an eternal, uncreated being. I think you believe that you, with all humans, are eternal, 
uncreated beings too.  But you are not the Eternal God.  If LDS theology is true and you 
become a God, you will still be considered an eternal being but you will not be considered 
the Eternal God because you have not always been God.  In LDS theology, Heavenly Mother and 
Father have not been Gods eternally because they became Gods.  But yes, they can be viewed 
as eternal beings in LDS theology but not Eternal Gods in the way I am explaining.

As explained before, your reasoning here is flawed.  According to your same reasoning this means (contrary to what the Bible says) that nobody can ever really receive “eternal life”, since they would not have the same life eternally.  They attained it at some point, so it can’t be “eternal” life.  (See my further discussion on this below).

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

I already explained to you how your interpretation of “everlasting to everlasting” in the Bible is flawed, and the problem is not because of what “everlasting” means in English.  The problem is because of what the Hebrew word ‘ôlām means in Hebrew.  The Hebrew word ‘ôlām just means an indefinite period of time.  

To demonstrate this fact, notice how the Hebrew word ‘ôlām is used in this verse:  

“And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time [‘ôlām], even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.” (Joshua 24:2)

When you consider the word "everlasting", it must be taken in context of what the scripture 
is trying to convey.  Just like the word "firstborn".  There can be several meanings. Firstborn 
does not necessarily mean first born.

Exodus 4:22 says, "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, 
even my firstborn."

You are changing the topic here again.  We are talking about the meaning of the Hebrew word ‘ôlām, not “firstborn”.  Stay focused.   

The Hebrew word ‘ôlām simply means an indefinite period of time, not “eternity to eternity” as you want it to say.

This is why Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible translates Psalm 90:2 this way:  

“Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou art God.”

So what Joseph Smith taught about God is totally consistent with scripture, including LDS scripture.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Furthermore, I explained to you previously how it was that Joseph Smith taught that God “became God “in relationship to us in my post on 10/30/2022 and 11/10/2022.  God the Father has always been above all others.

That is a different concept than Heavenly Father once being a man who became a God, who then 
went on to populate our Earth and supposedly many other worlds. 

Yes, which demonstrates that your version of what Joseph Smith said above can’t be correct, since what I quoted is Joseph Smith explaining exactly how God “became God” relative to us in the very same sermon.

And you are totally misconstruing Joseph Smith.  He didn’t teach the sequence of events in the way you portray it.  Joseph Smith said that God “dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did”, but not in the same order that you paraphrase it above.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

 How he came to be our God is explained in this statement from Joseph Smith:

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

Here is another "first principle" on how God came to be God.

"... it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to 
be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that 
God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you 
may see.

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of 
the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse 
with him as one man converses with another" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, page 345).

I stated in my last post that this is totally consistent with scripture including LDS scripture.  Is there a reason you are repeating it again?

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

"Becoming like him" is more appropriately termed "becoming a God", i.e., achieving godhood.

Yes, which is similar to how the early Christians taught that men can become gods.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

You didn’t directly answer my question about Hebrews 12:9, but from what you say above I gather that you believe that when Hebrews 12:7-9 talks about the chastening of a father to his sons and compares the “fathers of our flesh” to the “Father of spirits”, it is talking about literal “fathers of our flesh” on the one hand as compared to the figurative “Father of spirits” on the other hand, with the latter meaning that God created us and he is only our “Father” in a figurative sense.  Is that correct?

That's what I was meaning.   I don't believe we are spirit children of heavenly parents.  

Right, you don’t believe that God is really the “Father of spirits” in a way that compares to the “fathers of our flesh” as the Bible teaches in those verses (Hebrews 12:7-9).  

Instead, you said you believe God “created” us, which doesn’t compare to the fathers of our flesh (as the verse in context is using it) in the same way.  God also created rocks.  Is God also the father of rocks and he chastens them too?  

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

My reference to Acts 17:28-29 is not to claim that we are God’s offspring (although that is certainly implied there as well).  Rather, the point here is that the Greek word that is translated as “offspring” in that verse means that we are the very same kind of being as God, same race or genus (using the taxonomic term), and this is how Paul’s Greek audience would have understood the meaning of the word.  Paul intentionally used that word for that very meaning.  To try to claim that Paul really meant that we are created by God (and not really the same kind of being) would destroy Paul’s whole argument to the men of Athens, as I’ll explain below.

The method of creation is the key.

But the Greek word génos does not refer to creation, at least not in the sense that we normally refer to creation.  It is teaching that we are the very same kind of being that God is.  We are related to him, his offspring.

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

Paul may have had "The Phaenomena of Aratus" in mind.

Yes, that’s what I said in my last post as well.

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

I think he is referring to us being offspring in a spiritual sense, of a living God and his 
argument is their use of statues in their worship, which cannot talk, see, or hear.

The pagans understood "offspring" in the sexual case of literal reproduction for the Greek 
gods; like that which occurs between male and female.  While Paul uses the term, he is not 
inferring the involvement of a heavenly mother or any type of procreation of a celestial 
nature  

But you just said how you think pagans understood “offspring”, and Paul was speaking to a Greek pagan audience (the Athenians).  So why would Paul use a term that his Greek audience would understand in the way you described it if Paul did not mean it to be understood that way?  (You just provided evidence against your own belief about Paul did not mean).

Paul deliberately used a word that would convey his intentions and meaning to his Greek audience.  And he could not have meant offspring in a spiritual sense, because none of his Greek audience were born again spiritually and Paul explained “offspring” as applying to all of them as well as himself (i.e. “we are his offspring”).

We know we are “the offspring of God”, the very same kind of being as God is in a literal sense (as conveyed by the meaning of the word génos ), but how exactly that came about is not explained. But it is clear that Paul taught that we are the same kind of being as God, his very offspring, and this is a biblical teaching that is often rejected today because it doesn’t fit with many modern Christian interpretations of our relationship with God. 

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

In Matthew 3:9, it says: "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our 
father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto
Abraham".

Genesis 2:7 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground [body], and breathed into his nostrils the breath [spirit] of life; and man became a living soul.”

God formed man’s body from the dust of the earth, but the spirit of man came from the presence of God.  And in like manner he could raise up children unto Abraham (from the dust of the earth or from stones, same thing).  This doesn’t do anything to change our view on Paul’s teaching that we are the same kind of being as God, his offspring, because our spirits originate with God in either case.

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

Genesis 1:26–27 says, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and 
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the 
cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female 
created he them".

Apes resemble humans in their physical features but we don't classify the apes as being made 
in the image of God.  So image has a deeper meaning here.

Genesis 1:26-27 focuses on the physical creation, but as noted in my prior comment above, man didn’t become a living soul until God placed in him his spirit that came from God.  And it is in this sense that Paul was teaching that we are the very same kind of being as God in Acts 17:28-29.  We are the same genus as God, we are relatives in his family.  Being created in the image and likeness of God includes the spirit component as well.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

And when Paul says we are the “kind” of being that God is, this can’t be referring to the genetics of our physical bodies, because our bodies are the offspring of our mortal parents.  Instead, this is referring to the relationship of our eternal spirits to God our Father, for our spirits came from God who is the “Father of spirits” (Heb 12:9).  And in the beginning, God created Adam’s body from the dust of the earth (the elements) and God put into him the “breath” (or spirit – same Hebrew word) of life, and he “became a living soul”.  His body came from the dust, but his spirit came from God (this is the same for all of us, not just Adam).  It is in this way that we are created in the image and likeness of God, for we not only have God’s form in likeness, but we have the image of his spirit as intelligent beings.

Yes. I can agree with that. We are not offspring in the sense of genetics.  We are spirit 
offspring in the sense of relationship.  We become the children of God through adoption.

We are the literal spirit offspring of God in the sense of family and kind of being relationship, as the word génos conveys, AND we must become the children of God in a figurative spiritual or behavioral sense through adoption.  Both of these meanings of children of God are taught in the Bible.  We have discussed this before (see 03/11/2022, and this other post from me on 03/06/2020).

In Acts 17:28-29, Paul taught the Athenians that we are all the offspring of God in the literal sense (we are the same kind of being, the genus of God), which has nothing to do with adoption and applies to all mankind since Paul was explaining these concepts to nonbelievers. 

But because of sin none of us can be legal heirs of God and all that he has, so we must become his children in a spiritual or behavioral sense, and so we must be adopted as children of God and heirs of God through the atonement of Jesus Christ by believing in him and following him, as is taught in John 1:12 and elsewhere. 

This is why Jesus taught us to "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;  That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 5:44-45).  In other words, God is our Father of our spirits in a literal sense, but we must learn to become like him (by doing what he would do) so that we “may be” his children in the spiritual and figurative follower sense.  The Bible teaches both ways.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

 So here in these verses Paul is not only saying that man and God are the same category of being, but he is also saying they are the very same “kind” of being.  We are all his “offspring”.  This is vastly different from the view that Christians developed in the late 2nd century and onward.  For some reason they don’t believe what Paul taught about God and our relationship with him.

It all boils down to if people view offspring as a relationship to God (in the sense of 
being adopted as sons and daughters through faith) or offspring in the sense of some type 
of procreation between heavenly beings in a celestial marriage.

Which way do you think was Paul’s intended meaning when he used the phrase “we are the offspring of God” (using a Greek word that means we are the same kind of being as God) when teaching a pagan Greek audience about our true relationship to God?  How did Paul want his pagan Greek audience to understand it?

And how does the idea of being adopted as sons and daughters of God through faith fit with the choice of words that Paul used in that passage, given the meaning of the word génos as it was understood by the Greek speaking people in Paul’s day, and according to how the word génos was used throughout the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament)?

I go with using the plain meaning of the text rather than trying to find some way to get around the plain meaning.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

So we fully believe that man was “created”, although we might understand the word “created” differently than the way most Christians defined it after the 3rd century AD.  The spirits of men were “organized”, and man was “created” or organized from the dust of the earth.  And from our current point of view on earth, there is a distinction between God and his creation.  Relative to our earthily existence, God is clearly the “uncreated one” and humans are the “created”.

From how I understand Abraham 3, the spirits/intelligences were not created. They already 
existed before they became spirit children of heavenly parents. I think the term used is 
"organized".  I prefer to use the word "procreated".  After all, a husband and wife having 
a child are not "organizing" a child. If Heavenly Mother and Father really exist and they 
are having children, I don't see anything offensive in using that term.

Except we really don’t have any revealed information on how the process of becoming literal spirit children of God works, other than a few references here and there (like Acts 17:28-29).  Some have assumed it is procreation (like yourself), while others consider it to be the spirits who aligned with Heavenly Father and his plan that were then called his children.  Either way, we are the same kind of being as God.

As for your objection to the idea that spirits/intelligences were “created”, you are relying on the modern Christian understanding of what it means to “create”, whereas originally it meant to organize from preexisting elements.  As I quoted before, Joseph Smith taught , “The Father called all spirits before Him at the creation of man, and organized them.”  The Lord showed unto Abraham, “the intelligences that were organized before the world was” (Abraham 3:22).  So, creation and organizing are used for the same meaning, but elements and spirits have existed eternally.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

I don’t try to interpret the Nicene Creed at all.  Rather, I use non-LDS Christian sources to have them explain how they interpret it, because it would be wrong to misrepresent what other people believe and teach.

I quoted from the Got Questions website explanation of the Nicene Creed, remember?  In the article titled: What is the meaning of homoousious?, they quoted the Nicene Creed as follows:   “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.”

Do you think the Got Questions website is interpreting the creed incorrectly?

About https://www.gotquestions.org/homoousious.html.

It said:

"In response, a bishop named Athanasius insisted that Jesus was homoousious with the Father—of 
the "same substance"—the same kind of being. In other words, Jesus is divine in the same way 
as the Father is".

"We find the teaching that the Father and the Son are homoousious in John 1:1, Philippians 
2:6, and Colossians 2:9. More importantly, the concept of homoousious explains the entire 
sweep of the New Testament teaching about the Person and nature of Jesus Christ. Jesus is 
fully God in the same way that the Father is God—they are of the same divine nature".

That is the correct interpretation.

So the Got Questions website got it right (according to you) in the part of the article you quote above, but not later in the same article when they translated the creed as, “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”?  Is that right?

As for the definition that Jesus is divine in the same way as the Father is divine, Latter-day Saint doctrine agrees with that 100%.  But that doesn’t explain how they are “one God” in the way that homoousious has come to be understood today (like the way the rest of the article explains it as “one being”).

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

The Father and the Son are not the same being.

The Trinitarian rational is that “The Christian church has historically taught that the Bible is clearly portraying God as one Being who exists in three Persons” (Got Questions – Should we worship Jesus?), or that “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“ (Got Questions - How is the doctrine of the Trinity not tritheism?).  This is in contrast to the earlier Christian teachings that there are “other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God”, and among them is Jesus Christ who is the “second God”.  The earlier Christian view is more in harmony with scripture than the latter.

But you may be confusing the term “being” with “person”, and you can see from the Got Questions definitions above that there is a distinction.

And Latter-day Saints don’t need to worry about how to define “homoousious” because we follow the biblical teaching on the relationship of Jesus to his Father, that they are one in unity of will and mind, but not one being. 

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

Maybe you understand "homoousious" differently from like I do.

As I have said many times, I don’t even try to understand “homoousious”, I let the people who believe in the Nicene Creed and a “homoousious” Father and Son define that term for me.

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

No one can fully understand the Trinity and many different groups try to give their best 
explanation, but I think, based on what you included in your last reply, that only the 
Latter–day Saints hold that the Trinity (the Godhead) consist of 3 Gods. In LDS theology, 
if I am interpreting it accurately, believes that the Godhead only consisted of Heavenly 
Father before Jesus and the Holy Ghost became Gods.  

Not just the Latter-day Saints, but the pre-Nicene Christians as well.  Although you may also believe the Godhead consists of three Gods if you do not believe the three persons are one being (I’m still trying to figure that out).

But from the biblical point of view, the three Gods are one God in unity of will and purpose, just as Jesus taught in John 17:11 and John 17:20-23.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe that Trinitarians are teaching a different god and a different Christ than what Jesus and the apostles taught when Trinitarians teach that Jesus is “of one Being with the Father”?  If so, are they in apostasy?

All I know is my belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being three different personages 
(beings).  The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. 

This is completely in accordance with the Latter-day Saint view.

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

Maybe they believe he was talking to himself when the Father was addressing the Son.

Yes. If they have an incorrect view of God, then they are in apostasy. Does this constitute 
a false god?  It depends on who you are talking to. Does believing in Jesus being Michael 
the Archangel mean one is in apostasy?  Yes.  Does believing in a Jesus who was the first 
spirit child of heavenly parents who progressed into becoming a God means one is in apostasy? 
Yes.  Does believing in a God who was once a man who progressed into becoming Heavenly 
Father of our Earth mean one is in apostasy? Yes.  Does worshipping a God that is contrary 
to what God has revealed about himself in scripture mean one is in danger of being lost? 
I would say yes.

I believe God has sufficiently revealed his true identify in the scripture so we won't be 
following the "another Jesus" that Paul warned the Galatians to avoid.

There is no second chance after death.  If I am wrong, and Heavenly Father really is a 
product of his heavenly parents, and he progressed into becoming a God and Father of our 
Earth, then I admit that I am currently worshipping a false god.

If God has sufficiently revealed his true identity in scripture, then why are there so many different interpretations of God’s true identity from scripture?  You are relying on your interpretation of scripture which has been influenced by the tradition of the creeds to come up with your version of God’s true identity, while the Jehovah’s Witnesses are relying on their interpretation of scripture to come up with their version of God’s true identity.  And the “homoousious” Father and Son is yet another such interpretation (and it isn’t even found in scripture).

You seem sure of yourself that the Latter-day Saints are in apostasy because of the things you portray as teachings of the Latter-day Saints.  But the actual teachings of the Latter-day are completely in harmony with the Bible, and you just disagree on Bible interpretation.  The Latter-day Saint interpretation is informed by additional revelations of course, revelations that give us more details about God than what is contained in the Bible, but they are in agreement with the Bible.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Or it does.  You interpret it your own way, but the Bible says God the Father brought his “firstbegotten” into the world.  It means what it says.

Begotten has several meanings.

Yes, I said that in my post as well. But you keep avoiding the verses under question and the context related to those verses and go off track to a bunch of other verses, and we need to consider the meaning of “begotten” or “firstbegotten” in the context these verses, which are as follows:

“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?  And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.”  (Hebrews 1:5–6)

How exactly was Jesus begotten by the Father before the worlds?  And how was Jesus the “firstbegotten” that was brought into the world?

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

In other words, he was the “firstborn of every creature” prior to creation, and he is the preeminent one put in charge of creation, and he is also the “firstborn from the dead” (i.e. he was the first to be resurrected) so that he might have preeminence in “all things”. 

Right. Firstborn does not mean "first born" in all cases. 
 
Jesus is the creator. He created Lucifer, Michael, and the other angels.  

But in LDS theology, if I understand correctly, he is before all things in the sense that 
he is before all other spirit children of heavenly parents.  However, he is not before all 
things in the sense of eternal, uncreated, intelligences.  Apparently he becomes the first
born of all spirit children when he is formed (created) as a spirit child. Then he becomes 
the firstborn (preeminent) afterwards.

Scripture says of Jesus that “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3), but where does scripture address the creation of beings (spirits that are not “things”) that were not made?

We have “angels” in the Bible, but that's really just a job description (it just means “messengers”).  Scripture refers to mortal human beings as “angels”, and spirits can be angels too.  And we have heavenly “hosts” that are an organized army or company of beings. Perhaps God organized the spirits and made assignments to those who would be his angels and heavenly hosts, but nowhere does scripture say spirits were created, rather it says God is the "Father of spirits".  And it definitely does not say that Jesus created Lucifer, Michael, or spirits.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Also, you did not answer my questions about whether you believe Jesus was “begotten of the Father before all worlds” as it says in the creeds. 

Was Jesus “begotten of the Father before all worlds” as the early Christians creeds teach, or not?  Or do you believe something else?

Begotten, not made.

I’m left to wonder how your comment above is an answer to the question I asked of you.  So you do believe that Jesus was “begotten of the Father before all worlds” as the early Christian creeds teach?

If you believe he was “begotten, not made” as your response above implies, then how was Jesus begotten before the worlds?  What does that mean? 

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

You also said, “It could also mean coming into power and authority” (regarding Jesus being the “firstbegotten”).

So, do you believe that Jesus came into power and authority?  Does that mean you also believe he became God?

Jesus coming with power and great glory in the future does not equal Jesus becoming God.

Your response above makes no sense to me given the context of my questions. 

Let me put this in context so I can understand what you are saying above accurately.  In my last post I said the following:

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Also, you did not answer my questions about whether you believe Jesus was “begotten of the Father before all worlds” as it says in the creeds. 

Was Jesus “begotten of the Father before all worlds” as the early Christians creeds teach, or not?  Or do you believe something else?

You also said, “It could also mean coming into power and authority” (regarding Jesus being the “firstbegotten”).

So, do you believe that Jesus came into power and authority?  Does that mean you also believe he became God?

I asked the question about the meaning of Jesus being the “firstbegotten” in the beginning, and you had said that “It could also mean coming into power and authority”.

And now you use it in the future sense, saying “Jesus coming with power and great glory in the future does not equal Jesus becoming God”. 

Your answer is about a future time, but I was asking about what it means that Jesus was “begotten of the Father before all worlds” (in the beginning) and what “firstbegotten” means in the context of Hebrews 1:4-6, where the Father first brought his “firstbegotten” into the world (all in the past).  All of my questions were about what “firstbegotten” means in the beginning, before the worlds were created and before Jesus was brought into the world. 

So what is the answer to my question about what “firstbegotten” means in the beginning, before Jesus was brought into the world?  Do you still think it has to do with Jesus “coming into power and authority” as you said before?

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

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?

Ask this question again if you feel I didn't cover it enough earlier in this reply.  

The apostles never taught the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are 3 Gods.

They did teach that God the Father is the God of Jesus Christ, making Jesus a separate God from God the Father.

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

Apparently concepts are in harmony with scripture to YOU if scripture does not say otherwise.  
Great! [Sarcastically speaking,] we can teach anything [fact or speculation], and label is 
as a doctrine or gospel principle, if scripture doesn't speak against it.

The key here is whether the teaching was revealed by God through a prophet of God, or not.  Obviously, people make up all kinds of doctrines and try to make them fit around the teaching of the Bible.

But God lives and God hasn’t changed, and God still reveals his word to prophets and apostles today just the same as he has done since the beginning.  And the things that God reveals about himself today are in total harmony with his teachings in the Bible, whether every detail is found in the Bible or not.

At some point either Jesus will return and reveal a whole lot more to us about God, or you and I will die and come before the judgement seat of Christ and learn a lot more about God.  When that happens are you going to pick apart and criticize everything that you find out about God that wasn’t detailed in the Bible?

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

How do you define “Trinitarian”?  I define that as a person who believes in the doctrine of the Trinity.

The doctrine of the Trinity – different strokes for different folks.  In the LDS trinity, 
all three Gods have not eternally existed as Gods.

Nor does the Bible say that they existed eternally as Gods.  So we’re right in line with the Bible on that one.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe that the three persons of the Godhead are each Gods, but are one God in unity like the Bible teaches and the early (pre-Nicene) Christians and the Latter-day Saints believe?  Or do you believe something else?

On a human level, I would say 1+1+1 = 3.  But understood another way, it could be 1x1x1 = 1.

I cannot go beyond the scripture of there being one God. I quoted several passages in the 
Bible for me and the Book of Mormon for you.

Switching from addition to multiplication is cheating and doesn’t solve the problem.

Do you believe that the three persons of the Godhead are each Gods, but are one God in unity like the Bible teaches and the early (pre-Nicene) Christians and the Latter-day Saints believe?  

As for complying with scripture, we agree with the Bible and the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants that there is one God, and that is partially explained by what I asked in the question above (as Jesus defined it in John 17:11 and John 17:20-23).  But what you must do is reconcile the one God of scripture with all the other verses in scripture that say there are other real Gods (Jesus Christ being one of them), and not in some nonsensical way that makes it sound like the one true God is a ruler over imaginary things that don’t exist.  

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

Understanding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as 1 God doesn't imply that God is a "three–headed 
monster" as Joseph Smith described it.

CFR on Joseph Smith teaching that God is a “three-headed monster”.

If you are thinking of the portion of Joseph Smith’s sermon in the grove (on June 16, 1844) that you chopped up and misquoted by omitting relevant context on your web page and included in your post on 10/02/2024, then I’ve already discussed how you completely misrepresented that statement.

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

Suppose false prophets or leaders of a certain Christian denomination introduce new theology 
about the nature of God. This theology doesn't align with Scripture and even contradicts it. 
These leaders create new ordinances that were never practiced by the early church in the New 
Testament, promoting teachings that tickle the ears of their followers, but ultimately are 
deceptive and misleading.

How would you recognize them as false prophets and leave?

It would be especially hard to recognize these false teachings if the new theology about the nature of God was introduced hundreds of years ago (such as the invention of a “homoousious” Father and Son and the introduction of the philosophical idea that God created all things out of nothing, putting a vast difference between God and man), and those teachings happen to be deeply ingrained in the traditions of the majority of Christians in the world today.  And not only that, but early on they had “transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant” (as it says in Isaiah 24:5), and the original ways are completely buried and forgotten.

Tradition is a hard thing to overcome.  Jesus and his apostles encountered a lot of opposition to their teachings because of traditions.  As a result, they were hated and persecuted, spoken against everywhere (Acts 28:22), were said to be teaching heresy (Acts 24:14), had false things said against them and were said to be speaking blasphemy and teachings doctrines contrary to scripture (Acts 6:11-14, Acts 21:27-28).  This all sounds very familiar.  And ironically, those that eventually killed the apostles thought they were doing God a service (John 16:2).  So those who clung to false traditions were opposing the true teachings of God in the name of God!

So, in that context how would you recognize the difference? 

Scripture is important of course.  In the New Testament, the Bereans were said to be more noble than others because they sought to verify the truth of the teachings of the apostles by searching the scriptures.  But those that persecuted Jesus and the apostles also used the scriptures against them, interpreting them according to their traditions.  The difference is the Bereans received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily to find out if what the apostles taught was true, while those who persecuted the Christians were led according to their prejudices and used the scriptures to support their own traditions and to try to find ways to trap and contradict the teachings of the apostles.  In other words, they never allowed themselves to even consider the truth of their teachings.

Since scripture can be used in both positive and negative ways, there must be other ways to know.  In New Testament times the message of the apostles was accompanied with the Spirit and of power “and in much assurance”, so that people would know where the message came from (1 Corinthians 2:4-5, 1 Thessalonians 1:5).  And in contrast, it was prophesied that in the “last days” and time of the apostasy, the false teachers would have “a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” (2 Timothy 3:1-5).  Regarding those who are in that category we are admonished, “from such turn away”.  So having the teachings accompanied by the Spirit and power of God are essential keys to recognizing the origin of true teachings, and we are to “turn away” from those that deny such things.

The apostle Paul also taught of other ways that we can discern between the things of God compared to the things of man, and this is in the same context of him explaining that his teaching came to them “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” in 1 Corinthians chapter 2. 

In that chapter Paul explained that, when he was among them, his teaching included “the wisdom of God in a mystery, even hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory”, and that there are many things that God has prepared for those that love him.  And we come to know those things because, “God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.”  He went on to say that “we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.” 

So a true minister of Christ would come teaching with the Spirit and power of God and would also have the spirit of revelation and encourage those who receive the word to seek out revelation to know the things of God, even the hidden things of God, and by revelation they would know where the teachings come from.

That’s how I would know if the teachings came from God or not.

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

I don't believe there are Gods in existence before the LDS Jesus or Heavenly Father becoming 
Gods themselves.  It is not in harmony with scripture.

Neither do I, since scripture teaches that God the Father is the God of “all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32).

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

About the phrase "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by 
the offices of the first–born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure 
that they should be made gods".

Do you believe gods are made (are formed)?

Those who become gods do so through the atonement of Jesus Christ and according to God’s plan as defined in the Bible and elsewhere.  However, they are not “formed” to be the God of Israel either before or after the Eternal God declared himself to Israel as scripture says. 

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

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?   <-  THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU.

This is referring to eternal life from the moment of their faith in Christ.  It is forward–
looking.

Awesome.  That’s what I suspected.

In your response above you say that “eternal life” for a Christian begins from the moment of their faith in Christ, “it is forward-looking”.  But in your post on 11/05/2024, you said the following (and this is what started this line of questioning):

“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 according to you Latter-day Saints can’t say that God the Father is “the Eternal God” because he has (as you suppose) “not eternally existed as God”, but you can say you have “eternal life” in a forward-looking sense, even though you haven’t existed eternally with that life?   Can you see that you are using a double standard?  I can!

You are using the phase “Eternal God” in a way that is inconsistent with the rest of scripture.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Where does scripture say Jesus always existed as God?

Hmmm... can I borrow one of your arguments?   Where does it say that Jesus is the first 
spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God in his pre–mortal life?

You can say this only if you base your belief that Jesus has always existed as God on other revelations outside the Bible like we do (but you don’t).  So in other words, you believe that Jesus always existed as God even though the Bible doesn’t specifically teach that.

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

I base my belief on Christ as the Eternal God, from all eternity to all eternity, with what 
I have quoted several times from the prophet Isaiah. Psalm 90:2 is another ("Before the 
mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from 
everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.").  Then, another is John 8:58.  Jesus (God) said 
I AM, not I WAS. Jesus is revealing his eternal nature of being God.

There is no verse in the Bible saying that Christ or God the Father is God “from all eternity to all eternity”.  Rather, as was demonstrated previously, you misconstrue “everlasting to everlasting” to mean “from all eternity to all eternity”, and that’s not the actual meaning of those words in Hebrew and Greek.  The Bible saying, “from age unto age Thou art God” as it does in Psalm 90:20 does not convey that meaning.

As for John 8:58, that just proves that Jesus is eternal.  But I already know that.

So you don’t have any verses to support this belief?

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Why does Matthew 28:18 have Jesus saying that “all power is given to me in heaven and earth”?  Did he not have that power before?

Yes. When Christ became man in the incarnation, he lay aside that "all power" for a time. 
 
In military analogy, this would be like a General removing his uniform to wear civilian 
clothes, laying aside his power and authority. He is still a General but he is temporally 
suspending that prerogative – unless he decides to exercise some of it while in civilian 
clothes.

The problem with your explanation above is that Matthew 28:18 says the power was “given” to Jesus by his God.  If Jesus simply laid aside his “all power” for a time, he wouldn’t need for it to be “given” back, he would just take it back again and nobody would need to “give” it to him.  So your explanation doesn’t make any sense related to what the Bible says on those points.

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

The scriptures allude to this.

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God [the 
NIV has "Who, being in very nature God] thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But 
made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the 
likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient 
unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and 
given him a name which is above every name" (Philippians 2:5–9).

Being highly exalted does not mean Christ was formed (made) into a God.

Philippians 2:5-9 proves exactly what I was saying above.  The verses say Jesus laid aside the position he had before with his Father so that he could accomplish the work of the atonement, but ultimately it is the Father that exalted him and gave him a name above every other name.  He was given this by his God and Father, it’s not something that he had (or else the scripture you quoted is wrong).

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Why does Jesus in John 17:22 pray for his disciples by saying, “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them”?  In John 17:5 it says Jesus had this glory with the Father “before the world was”.  When did the God and Father of Jesus Christ give that “glory” to Jesus?  (It had to be “before the world was” according to John 17:5 and 24). Did Jesus not have that glory before his God and Father gave it to him?

It depends on what type of glory you are referring to or what you mean by "receiving glory". 

What type of glory *I’m* referring to?  We were talking about what kind of glory Jesus meant when he said that his God and Father had “given” him that glory “before the world was”, remember?  This is about what scripture says, not something I said.

What kind of “glory” was Jesus talking about in John 17:22, John 17:5, and John 17:24?  And why did Jesus not have that “glory” before his God and Father gave it to him “before the world was”?   And if Jesus is really eternally God, why did he need to receive this glory from his God and Father in the beginning?

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

It doesn’t say in that passage.  But elsewhere the book of Revelation says for those who “overcome”, Jesus will cause them to be worshipped by other humans (Revelation 3:8-9, see also Isaiah 49:23 and 60:14).  These overcomers are also those who sit with the God of Jesus Christ and with Jesus Christ on God’s throne (Revelation 3:21).  So according to what Jesus says about others who become like God in the Bible, they are worshipped.

Do you mean humans (who become Gods) will be worshipped by their spirit brothers (in the 
same family of the same Heavenly Father) and their spirit brothers (not exalted) will worship 
both Heavenly Father and their newly–exalted spirit brothers, or just one of these options?

What do *I* mean?  Me?  We weren’t talking about something I said.  We were talking about what Jesus means in Revelation 3:8-9, remember?  This is about what scripture says, not something I said.

What does Jesus mean here?

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;  I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.  Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”  (Revelation 3:7–9)

Why would Jesus make other humans come and worship at the feet of those who overcome?

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

So, according to your reasoning, Psalm 86:8 would be, “Among the fictional gods (that some people believe are real) there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works"?  Is that right?

And Exodus 15:11 would be, "Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the fictional gods (that some people believe are real)? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?"

Isn’t that the same as comparing God to Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny?  How does comparing him to fictional characters that some people believe exist show praise to God about his greatness?

And wouldn’t doing that promote the legitimacy of those false gods?  Think about that for a moment.  Let’s assume you believe Zeus and Hermes are true deities (these false gods are mentioned in Acts 14:12). And you hear Psalm 86:8 quoted to you, and you imagine it to be saying, “Among Zeus and Hermes there is none like the LORD [YHWH], neither are there any works like unto the LORD’s works.”  Doesn’t that just legitimize the reality of Zeus and Hermes by saying that?   “Oh yeah” (you might think), “Zeus and Hermes are good gods, but YHWH sounds more powerful!”.

Or even with the statement from Deuteronomy 17:10 saying God is “the God of gods”.  With that same line of reasoning you might think, “Yes, he’s the God of Zeus and Hermes, so Zeus and Hermes are real and it’s still fine if I believe in them and worship them too”.

God is God over all gods that Hindus believe and worship as true Gods.

So you believe God is the God of Zeus and Hermes too.  Got it.  Anyone can be the God over things that don’t exist.  That’s not impressive at all.

I believe that scripture means what it says, and God is really the “God of gods and Lord of lords”.  He is the God over gods that are truly gods and exist in reality, and the Lord over lords that are truly lords that exist in reality.   He is also said to be the “King of kings” in the same manner.

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

God is above all the gods that Jethro believed were true gods.  That is what I meant.  He is 
still polytheist but acknowledges the top God.  Jethro does not renounce his belief in these 
other interior gods, which he still regards as being true gods.

But as I said last time, that is vastly different than the song of Moses (a true prophet of God) saying, “Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?” (Exodus 15:11).  None of the other gods that really exist can compare to the one who is the God of all other gods.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Third, and most importantly, the idea that this divine council consists of human judges contradicts the other verses I brought up, like Psalm 89:5-7, which speaks of these gods in a heavenly council. 

Psalm 82:1–4 says, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 
How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Defend the poor and 
fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out 
of the hand of the wicked".

How are these Gods judging unjustly, accepting the persons of the wicked, failing to defend 
the poor and fatherless, and not doing justice to the afflicted and needy?

The response that Pyreaux gave to this portion of your post explains the problem with your position quite adequately and also explains the ancient Israelite view of these divine beings.

The facts are that: (1) nowhere does the Bible teach that God appointed a council of Jewish elders to rule over foreign nations, (2) it makes no sense for human judges to be given the punishment to “die like men” (aren’t they already men and are going to “die like men”?), and (3) the human judges interpretation contradicts Psalm 89:5-7 which speaks of these gods in a heavenly council.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

So do you agree with the Got Questions website article, What is the divine council?, that the divine council is a pantheon of heavenly beings?  That’s exactly how Michael Heiser described it in his book, The Unseen Realm.  He wrote, “The God of the Old Testament was part of an assembly—a pantheon—of other gods.” (p. 11).  That’s the same book that is recommended by the Got Questions website on that topic (at the bottom of that webpage article).

No.

For me, the term "pantheon" brings an imagery of Gods, like the Greek and Roman pantheon and 
its hierarchy of Gods.  In short, polytheism.  I agree with heavenly beings like angels and 
other created beasts like the Book of Revelation refers to.

Of course, and this is probably why you slung out the word “pantheon” against the LDS viewpoint, given that the word has a derogatory meaning in your view. 

But if you would just read the Bible for what it says instead of trying to make it fit the modern Christian monotheistic Trinitarian model, you would see that it clearly teaches the existence of other gods that exist in reality.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you agree with John’s teaching that “we shall be like him”?   If you agree with John, how do you see that fitting with Psalm 89:5-7 as quoted at the beginning of that Got Questions article?

Yes, we shall be like him.  Satan and other angels of God were like Him but they were not Gods.

Adam and Eve, despite being created in the image of God, were not explicitly described as 
becoming like God until after they ate from the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden.

Where do you get the idea that Satan and other angels of God were like Jesus?

For your Adam and Eve comment, see my post in response to you on 08/02/2020.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

I was quoting from the Got Questions website, and I was stating their point of view on that topic.  So, you should ask them what they mean by “supernatural beings”.  Or, read the book they recommended on the topic (The Unseen Realm).

In plain Bible language they are elohim, meaning they are gods.

Angels are supernatural beings.

I think elohim there is a reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – who had roles in 
the creation.  If I am not mistaken, "Elohim" is the name of Heavenly Father.  Jehovah is 
Jesus Christ.

Remember, the comment of mine that you are responding to here was in the context of our discussion of Psalm 82 (in my post on 11/14/2024).  I had quoted from the Got Question website article titled, “What does the Bible mean by ‘you are gods’ / ‘ye are gods’ in Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34?, where it said the following:

“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.”

To this you asked me (in your post on 11/25/2024), “What do you mean by supernatural beings?  Deities, angels, or something else?  Are any of these "gods" worshipped by anyone, anywhere?”

At the end of my response (that you quoted above), still speaking about the elohim in Psalm 82, I said: “In plain Bible language they are elohim, meaning they are gods.”   Did you intended your response above to be about the elohim of Psalm 82, when you said, “I think elohim there is a reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – who had roles in the creation”?

This is how Psalm 82 uses the word elohim (in four places):

Psalms 82:1–8:
1 Elohim standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the elohim.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
 4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are elohim; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O Elohim, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Are those the elohim you had in mind for your response above?

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

I don’t know why people want to try to change what the Bible says all the time.  i.e. “No, they can’t be elohim, they’re angels or judges or false gods, but they can’t be real gods!” (Even though that’s what the text says!)

Can elohim be used to refer to false Hindu gods?

In a different context, yes.  But we are talking about Psalm 82 here, and false gods doesn't work in the context of Psalm 82 (that would make no sense).

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

I think your question presupposes a particular interpretation of what people wrote down for what Joseph Smith said that may not be the only way to understand what he said.

There's the fail–safe that I mentioned earlier.

Maybe we can misunderstand everything Joseph Smith said if it doesn't sound quite right or 
we disagree with him but don't want to accuse him of teaching falsely and deceiving people.

Seriously?  You are criticizing the “fail-safe” of correct interpretation?  I detect a double standard from you here.  If correct interpretation doesn’t matter, then you should believe and follow everything the Jehovah’s Witnesses tell you about how their doctrines are supported by the Bible.  Right?

But if correct interpretation of the Bible is important, then so is a correct interpretation in coming to understand what Joseph Smith taught (or anything else for that matter).  And, in all things we must compare our interpretations to actual recorded revelations that were given (whether it be in the Bible or other revelations).

Shame on you for disapproving of Latter-day Saints placing an importance upon interpreting Joseph Smith and all the other revelations correctly.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Doctrine and Covenants 121:32 and Abraham 3:17-19 are definitive in teaching that God the Father is the God of all other gods.

Ok. Heavenly Father [of Earth] is God of his own Heavenly Father and all the other Gods of 
all the other realms.

I’ll rephrase what you say above correctly:  Heavenly Father [of worlds without number] is the God and Father of all other gods of all other realms.

This is how Joseph Smith taught it:  “Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you”.  (History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844])

In other words, all the Gods “before us” (compared to our place and time right now) became “kings and priests to God”, the one God who is above all others and is the God of all other gods.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Above you were responding to my explanation about why Paul would be contradicting himself if he was referring to idols instead of real gods that exist in reality in 1 Corinthians 8:5 (since Paul repeatedly denied that idols are gods at all), and you are trying to change the subject to the question you are asking above.  Does that mean you see why Paul would be contradicting himself if he meant false gods when he said there are “lords many, and gods many” in 1 Corinthians 8:5?

As for your question above, see my response above.

There are many false gods, which people believe they are true gods.  

Hindus don't worship deities who they regard to be false.  They worship deities who they 
believe are true gods.

And you are still trying to change the topic from the point Paul was making in 1 Corinthians 8:5. Paul made it clear that idols and false gods are not gods at all, and it makes no difference if others believe that they are true gods or not.  To Paul, they are not gods (they are “nothing”), which is why it means that Paul would be contradicting himself if he was referring to idols or false gods in the very next sentence where he affirms that “there be gods many, and lords many”.  

As for your diversion comment, do you honestly think it makes sense to believe that God is saying in the Bible that he is the God of fake gods that don’t really exist?  

How is it praiseworthy to God to say he is better than things that don’t exist?  Our pet cat is better than things that don’t exist. Our cat obviously must be very powerful, because he can rule over things that don’t exist. It’s really impressive.  Is that how you see it too?

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, all that is biblical.  God gives his glory to the true followers of Christ, even the same glory that Jesus had with the Father in the beginning (John 17:20-23).  And sitting with God in his throne in the same way Jesus is sitting with God in his throne is being made equal to him (sitting side by side with him in his throne).  God gives them all power, all his glory, and all that he has (they will “inherit all things”). 

But as I said above, being “equal” to him in his position on his throne and in power and in receiving all that he has, does not mean that they become equal in all of his accomplishments in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, or in the number of his creations.

Jesus sitting with Heavenly Father in his throne does not mean Jesus was once a spirit child 
of heavenly parents, who progressed into becoming a God (or a god if you prefer that lowercase 
form).

Nor does Jesus having been born of Mary mean that he rose from the dead. (Duh).   Your comment has nothing to do with my point and attempts to divert from the point.  

What I said is correct.  The Bible makes it clear that God has a plan to exalt those who follow him, even with them receiving the same glory that Jesus was given from the father in the beginning, sitting with God in his throne the same way Jesus sits with his Father in his throne, and receiving power, authority and inheriting all things.  If that’s not becoming like God and Jesus Christ, then you’ll need to explain why those Bible teachings on those topics are not correct.

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

On 12/14/2024 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

The same goes for the revealed doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  They are in harmony with the doctrines and teachings of the Bible.  But that doesn’t mean every single detail is found therein.  Our doctrines come from God.  And there are a lot more things that God would like to reveal to us if we would just get on with embracing and acting upon what he has already given us.

Right, every detail is not the same.  But no scripture is in harmony with the LDS teaching 
that Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother were once man and woman, then husband and wife, 
then becoming Gods. Neither is the teaching that Jesus was the first spirit child of heavenly 
parents who also became a God, with the Holy Ghost as an additional spirit brother of ours.

Let’s just assume, for the sake of argument, that everything you say above is an accurate portrayal of LDS teaching (it’s not).  Where does the Bible teach contrary to any of those “teachings” as you describe them, making any of them out of harmony with the Bible?

Edited January 26, 2025 by InCognitus

[theplains]

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

 and as they come unto Christ their identity as Israelites and their lineage is made known to them by the Lord

Why is it important for some Latter-day Saints (who are both political/geographical Gentiles 
and non-literal blood Israelites) to be identified as Israelite and have a lineage made know 
to them via the patriarchal blessing?

Were there any Gentiles in the Book of Mormon who came unto Christ and had their identity 
and lineage made know to them by the Lord?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Baptism for the dead (obviously), and all the other temple ordinances we do today.  

There is ample evidence of these things from ancient Christian burials, ancient Christian art, and even in some Christian writings.  But I’m not going to discuss those other things on this board because it requires information about the temple that can’t be discussed here.

Since it appears you don't believe the early Christians were using the font upon the twelve 
oxen in the Jerusalem temple to proxy baptize for their dead, why did the Latter-day Saints 
choose to incorporate that type of font into their temple ordinance?

Did secrecy creep into the LDS temples as a result of the early leaders being involved with 
Masonry?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

There is nothing in your last post that provides any biblical references saying that no temple ordinances were required for Gentile and Israelite Christians.  So where does the New Testament say that no temple ordinances were required for Gentile and Israelite Christians?

I mentioned this a few times. The highlighted portion is viewable at this link.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75766-ephraim-the-birthright-and-the-gathering/page/6/#findComment-1210206204#:~:text=In the context,fornication

Before the resurrection of Christ, temple ordinances as practiced by the Israelites were 
mainly carried out in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple of Solomon, and then the Second 
Temple. These ordinances were part of the Mosaic Law and included rituals such as sacrifices, 
offerings, and various purification rites.

Sacrifices: Central to the temple worship, these included burnt offerings, sin offerings, 
and peace offerings, symbolizing repentance and the atonement.

Purification Rites: These were performed to cleanse individuals from ritual impurity, 
allowing them to participate in temple worship.

Festivals and Holy Days: Israelite temple practices were also tied to significant religious 
festivals like Passover, Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), and the Feast of Tabernacles.

As for Gentiles, they were generally not involved in the temple ordinances prescribed.

After the resurrection of Christ, early Christians, including both Jews and Gentiles who 
converted to Christianity, began to shift away from the traditional temple ordinances of 
the Mosaic Law. Instead, Christian worship focused on new ordinances and practices that were 
established by Jesus and His apostles. Here's a look at some of these changes:

Baptism: This became a central ordinance for both Jews and Gentiles entering the Christian 
faith. It symbolized purification, rebirth, and the acceptance of Christ's atoning sacrifice

The Lord's Supper (Sacrament/Communion): Christians participated in this ordinance to remember 
the body and blood of Jesus Christ, sacrificed for the salvation of humanity.

Laying on of Hands: This was used for conferring the Holy Ghost, ordaining individuals to 
priesthood offices, and blessing the sick.

As the early Christian Church grew, these ordinances became the new focus, replacing 
traditional temple practices. The physical temple in Jerusalem continued to hold cultural and 
religious significance for many Jews until its destruction in 70 AD, but for Christians, 
faith in Jesus Christ brought a new perspective on worship and covenant-making.

Making covenants in a temple is not depicted in the Bible.  You find the same in Joseph's 
Book of Mormon.  It does not explicitly identify any temple ordinance being performed before 
or after the resurrection of Christ.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

There is nothing in the context of Revelation 3:12 to indicate that this temple is in heaven.  That is simply your belief that you are reading into the text.

I looked at the institute manual (Religion 211-212 - New Testament Student Manual) and it 
does not offer up any geographical location for the temple in the Book of Revelation – unless 
I missed it.

Where do you believe this temple is and what is the setting?

Revelation 3:12 talks about the "temple of my God" and the "New Jerusalem, which cometh down 
out of heaven".  This suggests a heavenly temple because it's connected with the New Jerusalem 
descending from heaven.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Elsewhere in the book of Revelation there is a distinction between a temple in heaven and temples that are not in heaven.  For example, in Revelation 11:1-2, John is told to measure the temple (which harkens back to Ezekiel chapters 40-48), but he is also told to “measure” those that worship therein.  John is not being asked to take their measurements as if he is fitting them for clothing, rather this use of “measure” is to evaluate the people involved.  This is how the exact same Greek word is used in 2 Corinthians 10:12. It makes no sense for John to be asked to evaluate people who are already in heaven, so this must be an earthly temple being described.

The institute manual (Religion 302 – Old Testament Student Manual) refers to that temple in 
Ezekiel as a future temple in Jerusalem when the sons of Levi will offer the bloody sacrifices 
again to "round out and complete this ordinance in this dispensation".

I don't see any connection between the two.  In one case, an unidentified person is performing 
the measurement (Ezekiel 40:3). In the second case, it is John, in Revelation 11:1-2, who is 
instructed to measure the temple of God and the altar, and to count those who worship there. 

That altar is the same altar mentioned in Revelation 6:9 ("And when he had opened the fifth 
seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for 
the testimony which they held").

But getting back to your earlier statement - where do you see "temples that are not in heaven" 
in those passages in order for you to make a distinction?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

And in Revelation 14:15-17, the temple is mentioned twice.  The first time it says, “another angel came out of the temple” (verse 15).  And the second time it says, “another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven” (verse 17).  Why is a distinction made here unless the first temple mentioned is not in heaven?

It's just the way it was worded. Revelation 14:17 just re-enforces 14:15.  We also see this 
in Revelation 7:9-15

After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, 
and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed 
with white robes, and palms in their hands; 

And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and 
unto the Lamb. 

And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, 
and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, 

Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and 
might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen. 

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. 

The temple of God is in heaven.

"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" (Revelation 11:19).

The vision of John I believe is occurring in heaven's temple, near the throne of God, where 
the heavenly altar is.

The temple mentioned in Revelation 15:6 is also considered to be the heavenly temple. In this 
chapter, John describes a vision of seven angels who come out of the temple in heaven, bearing 
the seven last plagues. This heavenly temple imagery underscores the divine origin and 
authority of the judgments that these angels bring.

The heavenly temple is often portrayed in Revelation as a place of God's presence and glory, 
from which divine decrees and actions are issued as he rules from his heavenly throne.

There are more examples:

Revelation 7:15  - 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.

Revelation 11:19  - 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.

Revelation 14:15  - And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to 
him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to 
reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.

Revelation 14:17  - And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also 
having a sharp sickle.

Revelation 15:5  - And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the 
testimony in heaven was opened:

Revelation 15:6  - And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, 
clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.

Revelation 15:8  - And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his 
power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven 
angels were fulfilled.

Revelation 16:1  - And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, 
Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

Revelation 16:17  - And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came 
a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

So, your assumption (and it is clearly an assumption) that the temple mentioned in Revelation 3:12 is in heaven is invalid.  And the message is clear in any case:  Those who overcome participate in God’s temple, they are made “pillars” in God’s temple, proving that God’s temple is STILL relevant and important to New Testament Christianity.

That temple is the temple of the Holy Spirit, not physical temples which Latter-day Saints 
are building.  

I also don't believe that the future LDS New Jerusalem and temple prophesied for Missouri 
has any connection with Revelation's heavenly temple and city of New Jerusalem.

If you want to understand the purpose of worship and the temple for the New Testament 
Christians, see the interaction between Christ and the Samaritan women in John 4.

"Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where 
men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye 
shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye 
know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, 
and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for 
the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must 
worship him in spirit and in truth". 

As I mentioned before, as the early Christian Church grew, other ordinances became the new 
focus, replacing traditional temple practices. The physical temple in Jerusalem continued 
to hold cultural and religious significance for many Jews until its destruction in 70 AD, 
but for Christians, faith in Jesus Christ brought a new perspective on worship and covenant-making.

As for Gentile Christians, they were not saddled with performing any temple ordinances or 
cleansing rituals like the Jews were performing (John 11:55).

Some believe Ezekiel's temple and its sacrifices are memorials of Christ's death or as rites 
for the ceremonial cleansing of the temple, but not as a means to forgive sins. Remember, no 
one was performing proxy baptisms in the font supported by the 12 oxen. Old Testament priests 
would use the water from the brazen sea to wash themselves before performing their duties in 
the temple, ensuring they were ceremonially clean. Women were persona non grata.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Where does scripture say anything about the lack of a temple in the New Jerusalem that is in heaven before it comes down from heaven?

As for the lack of a temple in the New Jerusalem that comes down from heaven, that is the whole point of this part of our conversation.

The temple that is described in the Book of Revelation does not exist in the New Jerusalem 
for one obvious reason – the glory of the Lord.  

Revelation 21:10 – "And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and 
shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

Revelation 21:22 – "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are 
the temple of it. 

Revelation 21:23 – "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in 
it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 

The glory of the Lord illuminates the city in heaven without a temple and the same for when 
it descends to Earth. Neither does it have need of the sun or the moon to shine in it.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Obviously the temple was important to New Testament Christians from the time of Christ,

What ordinances or covenants you believe the apostles were still performing or making in it
after Christ's Atonement and before it was destroyed?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

The priesthood promises were through Abraham’s seed.  We already discussed this.

When do you believe Ephraim and Manasseh received any type of priesthood?

Who the seed of Abraham is can be thought of in several ways.

There is the seed of Abraham physically (descendants of Abraham according to the flesh); 
and spiritually (those who, like Abraham, have faith in God).

There is another aspect too.

Abraham's seed in singular [a reference to Christ].

Galatians 3:16 says, "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And 
to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ".

This has nothing to do with priesthood holders in the tribes of Ephraim or Manasseh in the 
New Testament. Also, there was no priesthood bestowed on Ephraim in the Old Testament.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Yes, that is exactly the point I was making.  They had their own prophets.  And when Israel was scattered, the prophets among the northern tribes went with them.  We no longer hear much about those scattered tribes in the biblical texts after that time because the remaining prophets were focused on the problems going on with those who remained in the land with them.

But God doesn’t forget his people.  Just because the Bible doesn’t contain any further record of those people and their prophets after they were scattered, it doesn’t mean that God didn’t continue to speak to them through his prophets, and it doesn’t mean Jesus ignored them and only thought about the Gentiles (as you suppose) when he talked about visiting his “other sheep” of the house of Israel.

The Book of Mormon has Jesus visiting the scattered tribes around the world after his 
resurrection and before he visited the Nephites (3 Nephi 16:1-3).  Then after the Nephites, 
he would visit other lost tribes (3 Nephi 17:4).

No secular or historical records support this.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Where does it say this pertains to Abraham’s “literal seed”?

Genesis 13:14-16 is referring to his seed all around the world, but you are mixing this up 
with the land inheritance allotted to Israel in the Old Testament. That was not for Gentiles. 
Unless you believe God allotted portions of land in Israel to non-Israelite tribes.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Conditional upon what?

The land inheritance (in the land of Israel) was conditional upon obedience.  They will 
inherit that land again in the future when they are reconciled to God.  God does not forget 
his covenant with his people.

Back in your reply of 11/15/2024, you seemed to insinuate the land of Israel would be too 
small of a land mass to serve as the land inheritance for the Israelite tribes. You mentioned
billions and billions of people and included the land of America into the mix to alleviate 
the space problem.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75766-ephraim-the-birthright-and-the-gathering/page/5/#comment-1210201939

In light of a seminary manual teaching that the earth will become a celestial world, without 
telestial and terrestrial residents, do you still have billions in mind?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-student-study-guide/the-revelation-of-saint-john-the-divine/revelation-21-22?lang=eng
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Yes, and why was the seed determined through Isaac?   Genesis 17:21: “But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.”  The children of the covenant are the ones that receive the promises:

Romans 9:7–9: “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.  8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.”

Galatians 4:28–31: “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.  29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.  30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.  31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”

So what exactly is the difference?

The promises for the Gentiles don't relate to inheriting land in the land of Israel. There 
are promises/blessings solely for Israel and promises/blessings which apply to both Israel 
and the Gentiles.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Actually, the people of Zarahemla discovered Coriantumr at some unspecified date after their arrival in the land (see Omni 1:21), and it was sometime between 323 and 130 B.C that Mosiah discovered the people of Zarahemla.  So the full nation of the Jaredites was active and alive and well in the land at the time Lehi and his family arrived at around 589 B.C., and they could have remained so for as much as 300 years.  

And Ether 10:19-21 describes migrations of the Jaredites into the land southward, and at that time it says, “the whole face of the land northward was covered with inhabitants” (verse 21).  So there is a vast population described in the land, and some of them went south to inhabit other areas not described in any of the final battles.

And there is a huge difference between the “utter destruction” of the “Jaredite nation”, and the destruction of all the people who descended from the Jaredites.  The “Jaredite nation” centered around the kingdom possessed by Coriantumr’s family (“Coriantumr was king over all the land” – Ether 12:1).  The prophet Ether prophesied, not that every single Jaredite would be completely wiped out, but rather that if Coriantumr “would repent, and all his household, the Lord would give unto him his kingdom and spare the people – Otherwise they should be destroyed, and all his household save it were himself.” (Ether 13:20-21)  So the destruction had to do with Coriantumr and his household (they were his “people”) and the “Jaredite nation” was related to his kingdom, not every single Jaredite that was on the face of the land.

The fact that the Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites had extended contact with the Jaredites is attested by the “Reuse of Jaredite Names Among the Mulekites, Lamanites and Nephites” (special thanks to Robert F. Smith for that).

And, there are many other indications that there were other people in the lands already.  The Jaredites are just the most obvious.

There is nothing in the Book of Ether to indicate that some Jaredites didn't participate in 
the war and survived.  

We see the opposite.  The battles resulted in the annihilation of the entire Jaredite population, 
except for Coriantumr, who, according to the Book of Mormon, survived to fulfill a prophecy 
that he would be the last of his people.

The prophecy about Coriantumr is found in Ether 13:20-24, where it was foretold that if the 
Jaredites did not repent, they would be destroyed. It was prophesied specifically that 
Coriantumr would be the last surviving Jaredite and he would live to see another people 
inherit the land.

"And in the second year the word of the Lord came to Ether, that he should go and prophesy 
unto Coriantumr that, if he would repent, and all his household, the Lord would give unto 
him his kingdom and spare the people—Otherwise they should be destroyed, and all his 
household save it were himself. And he should only live to see the fulfilling of the 
prophecies which had been spoken concerning another people receiving the land for their 
inheritance; and Coriantumr should receive a burial by them; and every soul should be 
destroyed save it were Coriantumr. And it came to pass that Coriantumr repented not, neither 
his household, neither the people; and the wars ceased not; and they sought to kill Ether, 
but he fled from before them and hid again in the cavity of the rock".

Coriantumr did not repent. His household ("his people" as you said above) did not repent.  
The people (the other Jaredites) also did not repent.

Also, I see you mentioned Robert F. Smith and some "Reuse of Jaredite Names Among the 
Mulekites, Lamanites and Nephites".  

That's a weak proof.  With the plates of Ether, some names persisted among the Nephites. 

Here are three examples:

Coriantumr - the last Jaredite king, and also the name of a Nephite dissenter who led Lamanite 
armies.

Shiblon – a Jaredite name mentioned in the lineage of Ether and also the name of one of Alma 
the Younger's sons.

Moron – a Jaredite king.  While not directly a Nephite name, it is similar to "Moroni".

We see a similar naming process today.  We don't have the biblical Gabriel, Michael, Peter, 
John, etc living among us today but we have a record of their names from scripture.  Some of 
us name our children after them.  Some have even named their sons "Jesus". I am not aware of 
any Latter-day Saints calling their children Moron or Moroni (who was portrayed as possibly 
the most remarkable role model of faith, save Jesus, in Alma 48:17).
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

There is no question that the scriptures foretold that the time would come when the Gentiles would have the gospel preached to them as well.  But quoting those prophesies does not prove the timing on when Jesus told the apostles to start preaching to the Gentiles, which was not until Acts chapter 10.

Under leading of the Holy Spirit, Philip's preaching and baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch can 
be seen as a precursor to the broader mission to the Gentiles. It shows that even before Paul's 
commissioning by Christ and before Peter's meeting with Cornelius, there were already inklings 
of the gospel being shared beyond Jewish communities.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Jesus prophesied to Paul that he would be sent to the Gentiles, yes.  But you’ll notice that Paul didn’t start preaching the gospel to the Gentiles until after Peter received his vision.

Supposedly you know what Paul was doing during all the years between his encounter with Christ 
and his eventual meeting with Peter.

Maybe you believe Paul kept silent and didn't preach the gospel to anyone prior to meeting the 
apostles. When he finally met with Peter, there is no indication he added anything to Paul's 
understanding of the gospel.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Many Israelites in the Old Testament married non-Israelites, and it didn’t disqualify them as Israelites.  The Samaritans, being literal Israelites, would qualify for teaching the gospel at that time.  Even though the Samaritans were despised and avoided at first, they still qualified as Israelites.

Right. The Gentiles who intermarried with the Israelites did not disqualify them as being 
Gentiles so that means they would have heard (either directly or indirectly) the gospel 
message.

Jesus commissioned the 70 (72 in some manuscripts) to preach where Jesus would soon visit 
(Luke 10:1). They had power to heal and to cast out evil spirits. A similar commissioning 
had occurred with Jesus' twelve apostles as the Lord sent them out to cure diseases and 
cast out demons (Matthew 10:1–42; Luke 9:1–6). One difference is that Jesus had told the 
Twelve that they were to preach in Galilee, avoiding Gentile areas and Samaria, but the 70 
(or 72) were given no such restriction.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

You are mistaken.  The “other sheep” is based on Jesus saying “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”  (Matthew 15:24).  3 Nephi 15:21 supports the biblical text on this.

In the Book of Mormon, are Gentiles ever specifically referred to as sheep having Christ as 
their shepherd?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

That’s right, the disciples in Judea didn’t understand.  They weren’t looking at the big picture regarding their place among all the tribes of Israel, and that Jesus was sent to all of them.

Supposedly Jesus visited all the lost tribes around the world after his resurrection.  I 
mentioned this earlier.  No historical or secular records support this.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

The two recorded examples in the scriptures of Jesus having a brief interaction with Gentiles during his mortal ministry (Matthew 8:5-13, 15:21-28) don’t stand up to the full ministry that Jesus was referring to where he said “other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice”.  Jesus said this during the third year of his ministry, and he spoke of it as having a future fulfillment.  None of the Gentiles (as a “fold”) ever “heard his voice” in a future ministry.  Rather, he went only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, as he stated.

Isaiah 53:6 ("All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; 
and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all") can be applied to both Jew and Gentile.

Another way to interpret "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" is 
that Christ meant he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel in the country of 
Israel (mostly populated by the remaining descendants of all the 12 tribes who were living 
there), as opposed to also being sent to the lost sheep (Jews and Gentiles) living in other 
nations like Egypt or Italy.

This followed God's pattern of dealing with the Israelites in the Old Testament – where he 
dealt with only Israel as a nation, but Gentiles living there and who believed and participated 
also benefited during the times of the prophets and judges.  They were included in the Old 
Testament covenant blessings. 

You mention "Gentiles (as a fold) never heard Christ's voice in a future ministry", but 
Gentiles (as individuals) did hear Christ (either directly or indirectly) in Israel. A brief 
interaction may not be the same as a full ministry, but it still represents a form of 
interaction—essentially a small ministry—between Christ and some Gentiles.

Maybe you believe no Gentiles heard Christ's voice during his three-year ministry in Israel.

Something you said earlier - "A literal Israelite (by blood) can be a literal Gentile (in 
the political or geographical sense)".  So, Jesus supposedly visited these Gentiles (Israelites 
living in Gentile countries) after his recorded meeting with the Nephites (3 Nephi 16:1).
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

I think Peter’s hypocrisy is a good example of what I am asking about, because that reflects on his prejudices and lack of understanding.

Right. That was his own failure. Peter did not teach this as an acceptable practice or 
doctrine. Paul rebuked him before it could affect other Christians.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe that it was possible for the apostles or prophets to believe or teach anything that turned out to be false?  Or do you believe that God controlled their thinking so that they always perfectly understood what he was teaching them so they could also teach it to others perfectly?

Provide two key examples from your canon: the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, and the POGP.  I'll 
comment then.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

The New Testament Christian church fell into apostasy when they rejected the leadership appointed by the apostles and defected from the true teachings that were handed down by the apostles, such as when they changed the identity of the true God into a “homoousious” being comprised of three persons.  That’s the correct meaning of apostasy.

Don't forget the 1997 Gospel Principles teaching that Christ's church was destroyed.

The Great Apostasy occurs yet in the future (2 Thessalonians 2:8-12; Revelation 13 and 19).
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Where does scripture say the church of Christ on earth cannot be destroyed?

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; 
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".

Hell (Satan) cannot prevail against (destroy) what Christ is building.

The church of Christ has an enduring nature.

Ephesians 2:19-20: describes the Church as being "built upon the foundation of the apostles 
and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." This underscores the concept 
of the Church being enduring and solid.

Daniel 2:44: in this verse, it speaks of a kingdom set up by the God of heaven that will 
"never be destroyed," which many interpret as a prophetic reference to Christ's eternal 
kingdom or Church.

Isaiah 54:17: this verse is sometimes cited in Christian teachings about protection and 
endurance, as it states, "No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper."

1 Corinthians 15:24-25: these verses talk about Christ reigning until all enemies are defeated, 
which can imply the continued, unassailable presence of His kingdom.

Hebrews 12:28: this verse speaks of receiving a kingdom that cannot be moved, which is 
interpreted as the Church or the community of believers that remains steadfast.

Matthew 28:19-20: known as the Great Commission, where Jesus commands His disciples to make 
disciples of all nations and promises that He will be with them "always, even unto the end 
of the world." This can be seen as an assurance of His enduring presence and support for His 
Church.

Revelation 12:6 – which some believe is the church of God. "And the woman fled into the 
wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand 
two hundred and threescore days.

I think you also believe this of your church.  Or maybe you think the devil can destroy the 
church you belong to after all.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Like when the apostle Paul believed, and taught others to believe, that the second coming of Christ would come during his lifetime?  Is that the kind of institutional apostasy you mean?

The Apostle Paul, in his letters, sometimes conveyed a sense of urgency about the Second 
Coming of Christ, which has led some to interpret that he taught it would definitely occur 
in his lifetime. 

Here's a verse that is often discussed in this context: 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17

Paul speaks about the coming of the Lord and uses language that includes "we which are alive 
and remain," which suggests he contemplated the possibility of being present at the Second 
Coming.

Paul's letters often reflect the early Christian anticipation of Christ's return, but they 
don't categorically state it would occur within his lifetime.

1 Corinthians 15:51-52 - In this chapter, Paul discusses the resurrection and says, "We shall 
not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the 
last trump." The use of "we" can imply he included himself among those who might experience 
these events firsthand.

These verses reflect the early Christian anticipation of Christ's return, which many early 
believers hoped would occur soon.

In addition to the passages mentioned, there's another passage that can be interpreted in 
a similar context regarding Paul's anticipation of the Second Coming: Philippians 4:5.

In this passage, Paul writes, "Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at 
hand." This phrase, "The Lord is at hand," has been interpreted by some as reflecting his 
belief in the imminence of Christ's return in his lifetime.

These are passages where some see hints of Paul's hope that the Second Coming might be near, 
during his time.

The same is true for Christians today. Christ can return even today.

In LDS theology, a sign that the Second Coming is near revolves around a prophecy that the 
city and temple in Missouri will be built – where Christ will make his first appearance when 
he returns. 

The institute manual (Religion 430-431 – Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, chapter 36, 
page 101) says about the Second Coming, "He will come in private to his prophet and to the 
apostles then living ... "[Christ's] next appearance [after his appearance in the New Jerusalem] 
will be among the distressed and nearly vanquished sons of Judah".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32501_eng.pdf?lang=eng

The online version words it a little differently:

"His first appearance will be to the righteous Saints who have gathered to the New Jerusalem. 
In this place of refuge they will be safe from the wrath of the Lord, which will be poured 
out without measure on all nations. …

"The second appearance of the Lord will be to the Jews. To these beleaguered sons of Judah, 
surrounded by hostile Gentile armies, who again threaten to overrun Jerusalem".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/36-second-coming?lang=eng
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

The problem with your objection above is that it is entirely based on your personal beliefs, and not upon any scripture.  There is no place in the Bible that teaches that Jesus has “always been God”, or even that his God has “always been God”.  You mistakenly believe and keep asserting that “everlasting to everlasting” means “eternity to eternity”, but that’s definitely not the way the people who wrote the verse in Hebrew and Greek understood it as I showed in my last post.  You are free to believe that, but that’s not what the Bible teaches.

What do you believe the LDS Jesus was before he became the first spirit child of heavenly 
parents and later progressed into becoming a God?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

You keep saying this, but you have provided no actual biblical support for such a teaching.  Psalm 90:2 doesn’t teach that God is God from eternity to all eternity.

"From everlasting to everlasting you are God".  This is the same as "God is God from all 
eternity to all eternity".

"Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, 
and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).

You tend to believe it's "beside me there is no God of the nation of Israel".

But since you appear to believe Jesus is not God from all eternity to all eternity, what 
scripture shows Jesus was an eternal (gnolaum) uncreated spirit, or that he was the first 
spirit child born to a heavenly mother, or identifies what other kind of being he could have 
possibly been before being born to heavenly parents?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

The manual says “It is important to remember that the nature and appearance of this mark are not fully understood. Book of Mormon prophets and modern prophets have taught it is wrong to revile or look down upon people because of the color of their skin (see Jacob 3:9).”

See chapters 15 and 16 of The Way to Perfection.  The current LDS Church has a different 
understanding than the early LDS Church leaders had.

https://ia804604.us.archive.org/27/items/waytoperfections00smit/waytoperfections00smit.pdf

See also "What Does the Book of Mormon Mean by Skin of Blackness?"

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/what-does-the-book-of-mormon-mean-by-skin-of-blackness

And a sermon by Spencer W. Kimball in the October 1960 General Conference:

"The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they 
are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty 
Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but 
equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter 
than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the 
little member girl — sixteen — sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident 
she was several shades lighter than her parents — on the same reservation, in the same hogan, 
subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two 
years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the 
younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the 
Church are changing to whiteness and to delight-someness. One white elder jokingly said that 
he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process 
might be accelerated". 

https://ia800703.us.archive.org/22/items/conferencereport1960sa/conferencereport1960sa.pdf

Based on how they understand this doctrine, either the early LDS leaders were deceiving their 
members or the current LDS Church leadership is.

To ease their minds, some have suggested a fail-safe option: 'This has no bearing on my 
salvation".
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

So no, the manual and Jacob 3:8-9 are not necessarily speaking of physical skin color, and the manual uses Jacob 3:9 to prove that point, since that verse is talking about “filthiness” as compared to righteousness (which is the dark vs. white metaphor I was referring to, which is also taught in the Bible).

"And their [the Lamanites] curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto 
the Nephites" (3 Nephi 2:15).

"And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and 
obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly 
fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain" (1 Nephi 13:15).

If you want to travel down the metaphor road, the Gentiles were not righteous (white) like 
the righteous (white) Nephites before they were slain because the Nephites were destroyed on 
account of their unrighteousness.  They were not metaphorically "white" when they were 
destroyed.

See Mormon chapters 6–8.  

There you'll read about the final battles between the Nephites and the Lamanites. The prophet 
Mormon, who was leading the Nephite armies, documents that the Nephites had become wicked, 
rejected the prophets, and had fallen into widespread iniquity. As a result of their 
unrepentant state, they were eventually overpowered and destroyed by the Lamanites.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

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]

Would you fill in the blanks so I can understand what you mean.

Before Abraham was [ what? ], Jesus is [ what? ].
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

 I’m not sure why you keep coming back to this, as it is impossible for there to be anything “before” or “after” God, who is eternal.  But for some reason you seem to think it’s possible.  How is it possible?

I understand that spirits are eternal (gnolum) based on what I read in the Pearl of Great 
Price.  But the point I am making is that some eternal spirit being (Heavenly Father of Earth 
for example) progressed into becoming a spirit child of his heavenly parents (the Grandfather 
God of Jesus) and then progressed into becoming a God and then populated Earth with his own 
spirit children (which are supposedly yet other eternal spirits who are formed into spirit 
children of another family).

So, in LDS theology, there is a time before the LDS Heavenly Mother and Father become Gods 
and then heavenly parents of our Earth.

It's the same for the LDS Jesus. He is not God before he is born to his heavenly parents.  
He was formed into (became) a God in the pre-mortal realm according to LDS teachings.

Here is one example:

"By obedience and devotion to the truth he [Jesus] attained that pinnacle of intelligence 
which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state" 
(Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, chapter 4).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/4-jesus-christ?lang=eng
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

So what Joseph Smith taught about God is totally consistent with scripture, including LDS scripture.

How did a man and woman become Gods prior to them becoming the heavenly parents of those on 
our Earth?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

And you are totally misconstruing Joseph Smith.  He didn’t teach the sequence of events in the way you portray it.  Joseph Smith said that God “dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did”, but not in the same order that you paraphrase it above.

Did the LDS Heavenly Mother exist as a God when she was born to mortal parents on her home-world?

Who atoned for the sins of the woman who would later become the Heavenly Mother of Earth?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Yes, which is similar to how the early Christians taught that men can become gods.

The 1997 Gospel Principles taught, "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

Do you see a difference between "men can become gods" as opposed to "men can become Gods?"
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

But the Greek word génos does not refer to creation, at least not in the sense that we normally refer to creation.  It is teaching that we are the very same kind of being that God is.  We are related to him, his offspring.

If we are the same kind of being that God is, then that would mean we are already gods like 
God is a god.

If no (if God is not a god), then what kind of being is God?

If yes (if we are a god like God is), then why do people become gods like Doctrine and 
Covenants 132:19-20 says?

Since we are human beings and Heavenly Father is supposedly a human being too, then we are 
gods like Heavenly Father is a god, right?

Doctrine and Covenants 132:17 says, "For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they 
cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved 
condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever 
and ever".

If the offspring of God are the same kind of being as God is (a god), how is it that those 
who remain single (the same offspring of God) are now considered angels, and not gods?  Does 
this mean they transition from having the same nature as God to adopting the nature of angels?

Do Satan and his evil angels (supposedly the offspring of heavenly parents too) lose their 
status of being gods (the same kind of being God is)?  

Would you consider Satan as a human being too because he is supposedly a literal offspring 
of Heavenly Father (of the same type of being as Him)?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Genesis 2:7 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground [body], and breathed into his nostrils the breath [spirit] of life; and man became a living soul.”

God formed man’s body from the dust of the earth, but the spirit of man came from the presence of God.  And in like manner he could raise up children unto Abraham (from the dust of the earth or from stones, same thing).  This doesn’t do anything to change our view on Paul’s teaching that we are the same kind of being as God, his offspring, because our spirits originate with God in either case.

You mentioned the literal creation of Adam from the dust of the earth.

Do you believe the dust is literal just like the rib of Adam is literally used to form Eve?  
Or do you use a literal sense in one creation but a figurative sense for another?

Why did God put Adam into a deep sleep before Eve was formed?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

We are the literal spirit offspring of God in the sense of family and kind of being relationship, as the word génos conveys, AND we must become the children of God in a figurative spiritual or behavioral sense through adoption.  Both of these meanings of children of God are taught in the Bible.  We have discussed this before (see 03/11/2022, and this other post from me on 03/06/2020).

I asked this question before.  Who or what was the LDS Jesus before he becomes the first 
literal offspring of heavenly parents?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

In Acts 17:28-29, Paul taught the Athenians that we are all the offspring of God in the literal sense (we are the same kind of being, the genus of God), which has nothing to do with adoption and applies to all mankind since Paul was explaining these concepts to nonbelievers.

"In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, For 
we are indeed his offspring. Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine 
being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man" 
(Acts 17:28-29).

Did the Athenian poets believe humans are the literal offspring of a heavenly mother?  If 
yes, what name (s) did they refer to her as?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

But because of sin none of us can be legal heirs of God and all that he has, so we must become his children in a spiritual or behavioral sense, and so we must be adopted as children of God and heirs of God through the atonement of Jesus Christ by believing in him and following him, as is taught in John 1:12 and elsewhere.

I see some reference to this in Romans 8:14-17.

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not 
received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, 
whereby we cry, Abba, Father.  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we 
are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with 
Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together".

The heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ have all these qualities:
    • They are led by the Spirit of God.
    • They are the sons of God.
    • They are adopted.
    • They refer to God as Abba Father.

But Joseph Smith taught that these "heirs" are exalted beings.

"... [The righteous who have died] shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal 
glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs 
with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, 
until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as 
those who have gone before".

"They who obtain a glorious resurrection from the dead, are exalted far above principalities, 
powers, thrones, dominions and angels, and are expressly declared to be heirs of God and joint 
heirs with Jesus Christ, all having eternal power [see Romans 8:17]".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-18?lang=eng
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Which way do you think was Paul’s intended meaning when he used the phrase “we are the offspring of God” (using a Greek word that means we are the same kind of being as God) when teaching a pagan Greek audience about our true relationship to God?  How did Paul want his pagan Greek audience to understand it?

And how does the idea of being adopted as sons and daughters of God through faith fit with the choice of words that Paul used in that passage, given the meaning of the word génos as it was understood by the Greek speaking people in Paul’s day, and according to how the word génos was used throughout the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament)?

I go with using the plain meaning of the text rather than trying to find some way to get around the plain meaning.

I saw several commentaries on how to explain this.

[1]

The argument of the apostle is this: "Since we are formed by God; since we are like him, 
living and intelligent beings; since we are more excellent in our nature than the most precious 
and ingenious works of art, it is absurd to suppose that the original source of our existence 
can be like gold, and silver, and stone. Man himself is far more excellent than an image of 
wood and stone; how much more excellent still must be the great Fountain and Source of all 
our wisdom and intelligence." See this thought pursued at length in Isaiah 40:18-23.

[2]

We are the offspring of God; this is spoken by the apostle in a poetical expression, according 
unto what he had cited. We are indeed the children, and in our souls bear the image of God. 
But as many as have the Spirit of adoption, they partake of God's holiness, and imitate his 
goodness, and are more like unto him, by whom they are begotten again unto a lively hope, 1 
Peter 1:3; and at the resurrection they will appear unto all to be his children, when they 
shall be acknowledged his heirs, and coheirs with Jesus Christ, Romans 8:17.

A heavenly mother is not required.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Except we really don’t have any revealed information on how the process of becoming literal spirit children of God works,

Right. The LDS Jesus was not God before becoming the first literal child of heavenly parents. 
Neither were Heavenly Father (Elohim of Earth) and his wife Gods before they became literal 
children of their heavenly parents (i.e. Jesus' Grandfather and Grandmother).
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

So the Got Questions website got it right (according to you) in the part of the article you quote above, but not later in the same article when they translated the creed as, “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”?  Is that right?

As for the definition that Jesus is divine in the same way as the Father is divine, Latter-day Saint doctrine agrees with that 100%.  But that doesn’t explain how they are “one God” in the way that homoousious has come to be understood today (like the way the rest of the article explains it as “one being”).

Jesus is divine as the Father is divine. Right.  But we are not divine like the Father is 
divine.

As I said before, the Trinity is beyond my ability to explain it.  No one can truly comprehend 
it.  Even the Catholics give it their best shot.

https://catholiceducation.org/en/culture/one-in-being-with-the-father.html

Begotten, not made (not formed, not organized) into a spirit child of heavenly parents.

I cannot go beyond scripture so I stick with its teaching of there being only one God. Gods 
cannot be formed before him. Gods cannot be formed after him.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Not just the Latter-day Saints, but the pre-Nicene Christians as well.  Although you may also believe the Godhead consists of three Gods if you do not believe the three persons are one being (I’m still trying to figure that out).

But from the biblical point of view, the three Gods are one God in unity of will and purpose, just as Jesus taught in John 17:11 and John 17:20-23.

Do you have an LDS teaching that clearly says the Godhead is three Gods?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

If God has sufficiently revealed his true identity in scripture, then why are there so many different interpretations of God’s true identity from scripture?

Because they are influenced by un-godly sources. Muslims know about the Bible, but they reject 
what it teaches about Him. Hindus have access to read the Bible but instead they make gods 
of wood and stone.

In our particular case, I see several significant differences: God has always been God vs. 
God has not always been God.  Gods cannot be formed vs. Gods can be formed.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

The Latter-day Saint interpretation is informed by additional revelations of course, revelations that give us more details about God than what is contained in the Bible, but they are in agreement with the Bible.

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".

God is not a being who once existed as an eternal, uncreated intelligence who somehow was 
formed into a spirit child of heavenly parents, who then became a God, who then became a 
literal heavenly father of our Earth.

Which LDS scripture (s) shows these are in harmony with the Bible?
    • A heavenly mother exists, she is married to a heavenly father, and she begat us?
    • Jesus became a God?
    • Jesus has not always existed eternally as God?
    • Heavenly Father was once a man who became a God?
    • The Holy Spirit is a brother of Jesus who also progressed to Godhood?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

How exactly was Jesus begotten by the Father before the worlds?  And how was Jesus the “firstbegotten” that was brought into the world?

I don't know.  But Christ is begotten. He is not made (not formed, not organized) from an 
eternal, uncreated intelligence into a spirit child.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Scripture says of Jesus that “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3), but where does scripture address the creation of beings (spirits that are not “things”) that were not made?

We have “angels” in the Bible, but that's really just a job description (it just means “messengers”).  Scripture refers to mortal human beings as “angels”, and spirits can be angels too.  And we have heavenly “hosts” that are an organized army or company of beings. Perhaps God organized the spirits and made assignments to those who would be his angels and heavenly hosts, but nowhere does scripture say spirits were created, rather it says God is the "Father of spirits".  And it definitely does not say that Jesus created Lucifer, Michael, or spirits.

Jesus created Lucifer, a spirit being.  How he did this, I don't know.  He also created you 
and I.  Jesus also created the seraphim and cherubim. One of these types of creatures has 
wings.

In LDS theology, Jesus does not create all things for his Grandfather God has supposedly 
already created "things" elsewhere.  And many other Gods of the past have supposedly created 
their "things" elsewhere too.

This reminds me of the movie "Thor" with all its various realms. Each realm has their own 
ruler but no one ruler over the collective.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

If you believe he was “begotten, not made” as your response above implies, then how was Jesus begotten before the worlds?  What does that mean?

I found one article that describes what it means more than I ever could.

https://bibleask.org/term-begotten-son-really-mean/

There are several sources in the Book of Mormon which refers to Christ as the only begotten 
son of God.  This is before he comes to Earth and supposedly becomes the first and only begotten 
son of God in the flesh in the most literal sense.  An institute seminary manual refers to 
this as a Celestial Sireship.

Prior to the incarnation, 2 Nephi 25:12 says, "But, behold, they shall have wars, and rumors 
of wars; and when the day cometh that the Only Begotten of the Father, yea, even the Father 
of heaven and of earth, shall manifest himself [future tense] unto them in the flesh, behold, 
they will reject him, because of their iniquities, and the hardness of their hearts, and the 
stiffness of their necks".

Prior to the incarnation, Alma 5:48 says, "I say unto you, that I know of myself that whatsoever 
I shall say unto you, concerning that which is to come, is true; and I say unto you, that I 
know that Jesus Christ shall come [future tense], yea, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, 
full of grace, and mercy, and truth. And behold, it is he that cometh to take away the sins of 
the world, yea, the sins of every man who steadfastly believeth on his name".

Prior to the incarnation, Alma 9:26 says, "And not many days hence the Son of God shall come 
[future tense] in his glory; and his glory shall be the glory of the Only Begotten of the 
Father, full of grace, equity, and truth, full of patience, mercy, and long-suffering, quick 
to hear the cries of his people and to answer their prayers.

Alma 13:5,9 speaking of the ordination of the Nephite priests before Christ came, says, "Or 
in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this 
holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden 
their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared -- 
Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the 
Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and 
truth. And thus it is. Amen".

But in LDS theology, Jesus is not the only begotten of the Father. The LDS Heavenly Father 
begat billions of children in the pre-mortal realm.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

They did teach that God the Father is the God of Jesus Christ, making Jesus a separate God from God the Father.

Where does LDS scripture explicitly indicate the Godhead is three Gods?

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, 
whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3).

How many true Gods are there for Earth?  One or four (if you include Heavenly Mother)?

"Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, 
and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).

This truth is applicable to all worlds that the Lord has created.

"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" (Isaiah 43:10).

Latter-day Saints will not become (will not be formed into) Gods.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

But God lives and God hasn’t changed,

Right. The God who always was and is.

The LDS Heavenly Father:  originally an uncreated, eternal intelligence > then spirit child 
of his heavenly parents > then a mortal on some earth > then becomes a God > then becomes a 
heavenly parent of Earth.

I agree with you in one degree: I don't think the LDS Heavenly Father will change into another 
life form or a higher exalted form of his current self.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Nor does the Bible say that they existed eternally as Gods.  So we’re right in line with the Bible on that one.

It seems you are admitting that the LDS Jesus and Heavenly Father became Gods for they have 
not always existed eternally as God.

But you never show it with any LDS scripture.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe that the three persons of the Godhead are each Gods, but are one God in unity like the Bible teaches and the early (pre-Nicene) Christians and the Latter-day Saints believe?

They are one God in unity.

I'm not able to explain the Trinity nor go beyond the scripture so I will stick with that.

"Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, 
and I am the last; and beside me there is no God".
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

CFR on Joseph Smith teaching that God is a “three-headed monster”.

If you are thinking of the portion of Joseph Smith’s sermon in the grove (on June 16, 1844) that you chopped up and misquoted by omitting relevant context on your web page and included in your post on 10/02/2024, then I’ve already discussed how you completely misrepresented that statement.

Excuse me.  "Three-headed monster" is not there, but some form of monstrous symbolism is 
implied in History of the Church, volume 6, chapter 23.  Maybe he was thinking of a one head, 
three-bodied God:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-book/history-of-the-church-volume-6/volume-6-chapter-23

I'll quote a little before and after for context.

Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it 
renders it Gods. It read first, "In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," 
or, as others have translated it, "The head of the Gods called the Gods together." I want to 
show a little learning as well as other fools— A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink
deep, or taste not the Pierian spring. There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And 
drinking largely sobers us up again. All this confusion among professed translators is for 
want of drinking another draught. The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy 
all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and 
the earth. 

Now the learned priests and the people rage, and the heathen imagine a vain thing. If we 
pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, "Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aashamayeen vehau 
auraits"—"The head one of the Gods said. Let us make a man in our own image." I once asked 
a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the 
plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few 
exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He acknowledged I was right. I came 
here to investigate these things precisely as I believe them. Hear and judge for yourselves; 
and if you go away satisfied, well and good. [Page 476] In the very beginning the Bible shows 
there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. 

It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the 
way through—Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] 
view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the 
Gods. All I want is to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth. Many men say there 
is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange
God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray not 
for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me." "Holy Father, keep through Thine 
own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." 

All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God 
in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster. I want 
to read the text to you myself—"I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, 
and we are agreed as one." The Greek shows that it should be agreed. "Father, I pray for them 
which Thou hast given me out of the world, and not for those alone, but for them also which 
shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, art with 
me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us," and all come to dwell in unity, 
and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the Gods; and then we shall see as we are 
seen, and be as our God and He as His Father. I want to reason a little on this subject. 

I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house. I learned a testimony 
concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. "In order to do that," said 
he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist—two men on the earth, 
one wiser than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may 
exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them." If Abraham 
reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of 
Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a 
son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever 
did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor?

The above also has the teaching of Heavenly Father having a father himself and the heads of 
the Gods appointing one God for us in some apparent Grand Council.  This is also found in 
Teachings of Joseph Smith.

"The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the 
beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth ... In the very beginning 
the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great 
subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through—Gods. 
The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, 
its sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. All I want is 
to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth." (1938).

https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Tradition is a hard thing to overcome.  Jesus and his apostles encountered a lot of opposition to their teachings because of traditions.  As a result, they were hated and persecuted, spoken against everywhere (Acts 28:22), were said to be teaching heresy (Acts 24:14), had false things said against them and were said to be speaking blasphemy and teachings doctrines contrary to scripture (Acts 6:11-14, Acts 21:27-28).  This all sounds very familiar.  And ironically, those that eventually killed the apostles thought they were doing God a service (John 16:2).  So those who clung to false traditions were opposing the true teachings of God in the name of God!

So, in that context how would you recognize the difference?

I would stick with scripture instead of tradition.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

  So a true minister of Christ would come teaching with the Spirit and power of God and would also have the spirit of revelation and encourage those who receive the word to seek out revelation to know the things of God, even the hidden things of God, and by revelation they would know where the teachings come from.

That’s how I would know if the teachings came from God or not.

And a minister (like Joseph Smith) can come teaching a foreign god and lead his people to
worship that being.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Neither do I, since scripture teaches that God the Father is the God of “all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32).

Are these "gods" beings that will be formed into gods in the future?

How are the gods of D&C 121:32 different or similar to the gods in Psalm 82:1?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Those who become gods do so through the atonement of Jesus Christ and according to God’s plan as defined in the Bible and elsewhere.  However, they are not “formed” to be the God of Israel either before or after the Eternal God declared himself to Israel as scripture says.

If I were LDS, I would agree with you to some degree. They are not formed into the God of 
Israel on Earth.  But LDS teachings have them being formed into Gods and Goddesses of other 
places and then heavenly parents of their own spirit children. Unless they will share the 
same realm as Heavenly Father of Earth and populate only the worlds that he has created for 
their eventual exaltation and heavenly parentage.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

In your response above you say that “eternal life” for a Christian begins from the moment of their faith in Christ, “it is forward-looking”.  But in your post on 11/05/2024, you said the following (and this is what started this line of questioning):

“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 according to you Latter-day Saints can’t say that God the Father is “the Eternal God” because he has (as you suppose) “not eternally existed as God”, but you can say you have “eternal life” in a forward-looking sense, even though you haven’t existed eternally with that life?   Can you see that you are using a double standard?  I can!

You are using the phase “Eternal God” in a way that is inconsistent with the rest of scripture.

Christians having faith in Christ to inherit eternal life is not the same thing as God being 
God from all eternity to all eternity or that these Christians will become Gods. 

In LDS theology, it seems every being already has "eternal life" (they exist from all eternity 
to all eternity) in the sense they are uncreated (gnolum) beings but not Gods.

How do you understand the Book of Mormon Introduction page saying, "And also to the convincing 
of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God"?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

You can say this only if you base your belief that Jesus has always existed as God on other revelations outside the Bible like we do (but you don’t).  So in other words, you believe that Jesus always existed as God even though the Bible doesn’t specifically teach that.

I would say you believe Jesus, Heavenly Father, the Holy Spirit have not always existed as 
God even though no LDS scripture specifically teaches otherwise.

It seems "from everlasting to everlasting you are God" [Psalm 90:2] is not a quality you 
would apply to the God you worship or the God you hope you'll become.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

As for John 8:58, that just proves that Jesus is eternal.  But I already know that.

Right. The LDS Jesus is an eternal, uncreated intelligence (gnolum).  He was then formed 
into a spirit child of heavenly parents and later became one of many Gods in the plurality 
of Gods.  The same for Heavenly Father.

As Joseph Smith taught, the heads of the Gods appointed one God for us.  

George Q. Cannon, former member of the First Presidency, worded it in this way:

RACE OF GODS REDEEMED. It was necessary that a probation should be given to man. The courts 
of heaven were thronged with spirits that desired tabernacles. They wanted to come and 
obtain fleshly tabernacles as their Father had done. Their progenitors, the race of Gods with 
whom they associated and from whom they have descended, had had the privilege of coming on 
earthly probations and receiving tabernacles, which by obedience they had been able to redeem. 
Hence, I say, the courts of heaven were thronged with spirits anxious to take upon themselves 
tabernacles of flesh, agreeing to come forth and be tested and tried in order that they might 
receive exaltation" (Gospel Truth, volume 1, chapter 2, page 25).
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

The problem with your explanation above is that Matthew 28:18 says the power was “given” to Jesus by his God.  If Jesus simply laid aside his “all power” for a time, he wouldn’t need for it to be “given” back, he would just take it back again and nobody would need to “give” it to him.  So your explanation doesn’t make any sense related to what the Bible says on those points.

"… who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be 
grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness 
of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point 
of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him 
the name that is above every name".

Christ being highly exalted does not mean Heavenly Father made him God.

Christ has this power as God prior to the incarnation.  This is not true for the LDS Jesus 
prior to him being formed into a spirit child of heavenly parents.

Here is some commentary my Matthew Henry:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/Mat/Mat_028.cfm?a=957018

The commission which our Lord Jesus received himself from the Father. Being about to 
authorize his apostles, if any ask by what authority he doeth it, and who gave him that 
authority, here he tells us, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth; a very great
word, and which none but he could say. Hereby he asserts his universal dominion as Mediator, 
which is the great foundation of the Christian religion. He has all power. Observe,

(1.) Whence he hath this power. He did not assume it, or usurp it, but it was given him, he 
was legally entitled to it, and invested in it, by a grant from him who is the Fountain of 
all being, and consequently of all power. God set him King (Ps. 2:6), inaugurated and 
enthroned him, Lu. 1:32. As God, equal with the Father, all power was originally and essentially 
his; but as Mediator, as God-man, all power was given him; partly in recompence of his work 
(because he humbled himself, therefore God thus exalted him), and partly in pursuance of his 
design; he had this power given him over all flesh, that he might give eternal life to as 
many as were given him (Jn. 17:2), for the more effectual carrying on and completing our 
salvation. This power he was now more signally invested in, upon his resurrection, Acts 13:33. 
He had power before, power to forgive sins (ch. 9:6); but now all power is given him. He is 
now going to receive for himself a kingdom (Lu. 19:12), to sit down at the right hand, 
Ps. 110:1. Having purchased it, nothing remains but to take possession; it is his own for 
ever.

(2.) Where he has this power; in heaven and earth, comprehending the universe. Christ is the 
sole universal Monarch, he is Lord of all, Acts 10:36. He has all power in heaven. He has 
power of dominion over the angels, they are all his humble servants, Eph. 1:20, 21. He has 
power of intercession with his Father, in the virtue of his satisfaction and atonement; he 
intercedes, not as a suppliant, but as a demandant; Father, I will. He has all power on earth 
too; having prevailed with God, by the sacrifice of atonement, he prevails with men, and 
deals with them as one having authority, by the ministry of reconciliation. He is indeed, in 
all causes and over all persons, supreme Moderator and Governor. By him kings reign. All 
souls are his, and to him every heart and knee must bow, and every tongue confess him to be 
the Lord. This our Lord Jesus tells them, not only to satisfy them of the authority he had 
to commission them, and to bring them out in the execution of their commission, but to take 
off the offence of the cross; they had no reason to be ashamed of Christ crucified, when 
they saw him thus glorified.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Philippians 2:5-9 proves exactly what I was saying above.  The verses say Jesus laid aside the position he had before with his Father so that he could accomplish the work of the atonement, but ultimately it is the Father that exalted him and gave him a name above every other name.  He was given this by his God and Father, it’s not something that he had (or else the scripture you quoted is wrong).

"The Father exalted him" does not mean Jesus was formed into a God.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

What type of glory *I’m* referring to?  We were talking about what kind of glory Jesus meant when he said that his God and Father had “given” him that glory “before the world was”, remember?  This is about what scripture says, not something I said.

What kind of “glory” was Jesus talking about in John 17:22, John 17:5, and John 17:24?  And why did Jesus not have that “glory” before his God and Father gave it to him “before the world was”?   And if Jesus is really eternally God, why did he need to receive this glory from his God and Father in the beginning?

I addressed this earlier with some commentary by theologian Matthew Henry. If that doesn't 
help you, I'll try to find something else.

Your reasoning continues to support your belief that neither the LDS Jesus nor Heavenly 
Father was God before their respective God gave them their glory.

I find some instances of "receiving" and "giving" glory and "being" the glory of God. These 
do not indicate a person becomes a God, that God becomes something more than He is, or that 
God is in any way lacking in glory.

"When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, 
that the Son of God might be glorified thereby" (John 11:4).

Jesus does not become God by raising Lazarus from the dead.

"And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified" 
(John 12:23).

Jesus does not become God when he would be glorified.

"Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is 
glorified in him. If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and 
shall straightway glorify him" (John 13:31-32).

Jesus did not become God in that "Now" moment.
 
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do 
also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.  And whatsoever 
ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye 
shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it" (John 14:12-14). 

The Father did not become more God when he is glorified in the Son.

"Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples" (John 15:8).

This does not mean the Father is lacking in glory.

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall 
not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you 
things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you: 
(John 16:13-14).

This does not mean the Son is lacking in glory.

"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; 
glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with 
thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was" (John 17:1,5)

Jesus is not asking the Father to make him God again.  Would the Father become God or more God 
than he was when Jesus says he would glorify the Father?  No.

"And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them" (John 17:10).

Jesus does not become God when being glorified in his disciples.

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their 
word;  That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also 
may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou 
gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:20-22).

Jesus gave his disciples glory, which the Father had given Christ.  They did not become Gods.

"When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath 
God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life" (Acts 11:18).

This does not mean God is lacking in glory.

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: 
but the woman is the glory of the man (1 Corinthians 11:7).

Man is the glory of God. Woman is the glory of the man.  Neither man nor woman is God.

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the 
prophets,  Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir 
of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and 
the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he 
had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" 
(Hebrews 1:1-3).

Christ incarnate is the brightness of his Father's glory.

"That God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion 
for ever and ever. Amen" (1 Peter 4:11).

God the Father does not become more God when he is glorified through Christ.

"For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him 
from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (2 Peter 1:17).

When does Christ receive honor and glory in this incident?  When the Father speaks.

There are also passages in the Old Testament where God's glory is specifically mentioned in 
relation to being received or acknowledged by others.  This does not mean he becomes God or 
his glory is insufficient (see 1 Chronicles 16:28-29; Isaiah 42:12; Psalm 29:1-2; 
Jeremiah 13:16).
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

What do *I* mean?  Me?  We weren’t talking about something I said.  We were talking about what Jesus means in Revelation 3:8-9, remember?  This is about what scripture says, not something I said.

What does Jesus mean here?

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;  I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.  Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”  (Revelation 3:7–9)

Why would Jesus make other humans come and worship at the feet of those who overcome?

Revelation 3:7-13 is a letter to the church of Philadelphia.  It is not to all the churches.

"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, 
but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that 
I have loved thee" (Revelation 3:8).

"Them of the synagogue of Satan" will come to worship (pay homage, obeisance) at the feet 
of those in the church of Philadelphia who overcome but the Christians of that church would 
not be worshipped as Gods. They were mortals.  

Maybe you are conflating this with future LDS male immortal Gods who will be worshipped by 
the spirit children they have.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

So you believe God is the God of Zeus and Hermes too.  Got it.  Anyone can be the God over things that don’t exist.  That’s not impressive at all.

God executed judgment over the Egyptian gods.  He is God above all the gods they worshipped 
as true gods.  They did not worship what they believed were false gods.

We see this inferred in Exodus 18:10-11 ("Jethro said, "Blessed be the LORD, who has 
delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians and out of the hand of Pharaoh and has 
delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. Now I know that the LORD is 
greater than all gods, because in this affair they dealt arrogantly with the people").

Jethro can be considered a polytheist. Even after acknowledging the supremacy of the God 
of Israel, he doesn't reject the existence of the gods of Egypt or them being false deities.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

I believe that scripture means what it says, and God is really the “God of gods and Lord of lords”.  He is the God over gods that are truly gods and exist in reality, and the Lord over lords that are truly lords that exist in reality.   He is also said to be the “King of kings” in the same manner.

When you say "Heavenly Father is the God of gods", who are these "gods" and when did these 
beings become "gods"?

You don't really believe Heavenly Father is the God of all the Gods formed before him, do 
you?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

But as I said last time, that is vastly different than the song of Moses (a true prophet of God) saying, “Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?” (Exodus 15:11).  None of the other gods that really exist can compare to the one who is the God of all other gods.

What "real, true" gods do you believe this is a reference to?  Or are you referring to "false, 
pagan" gods?

Who is "like thee", "like God" is answered when you examine Doctrine and Covenants 76:95 ("And 
he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion").

Exactly equal to?  No.  

But can any compare to him or be made (formed) like him?  Yes, according to D&C.

Can any be greater than the LDS Heavenly Father?  Presumably yes.  Christ's Grandfather (another 
God) or any of Heavenly Father's exalted Brothers or Sisters could also fit the bill.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

The response that Pyreaux gave to this portion of your post explains the problem with your position quite adequately and also explains the ancient Israelite view of these divine beings.

The facts are that: (1) nowhere does the Bible teach that God appointed a council of Jewish elders to rule over foreign nations, (2) it makes no sense for human judges to be given the punishment to “die like men” (aren’t they already men and are going to “die like men”?), and (3) the human judges interpretation contradicts Psalm 89:5-7 which speaks of these gods in a heavenly council.

Who are the gods in Psalm 82:1?   Are they exalted beings of other worlds that Heavenly 
Father did not create?  If yes, how did they become gods?  If no, are they non-exalted beings 
like yourself?

You mentioned Psalm 89:5-7.

"And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O Lord: thy faithfulness also in the congregation 
of the saints. For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the 
mighty can be likened unto the Lord? God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, 
and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him". 

Are the saints of the assembly in Psalm 89:5-7 the same beings as the gods in Psalm 82:1?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Of course, and this is probably why you slung out the word “pantheon” against the LDS viewpoint, given that the word has a derogatory meaning in your view. 

But if you would just read the Bible for what it says instead of trying to make it fit the modern Christian monotheistic Trinitarian model, you would see that it clearly teaches the existence of other gods that exist in reality.

Don't you really mean other beings becoming Gods before Heavenly Father himself became a God?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Where do you get the idea that Satan and other angels of God were like Jesus?

• They existed before the Earth was created.
• They had agency, meaning they could make choices for themselves.
• They had knowledge of God's plan.  One chose to obey the Father's will, Satan rebelled.
• They existed as spirits.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

This is how Psalm 82 uses the word elohim (in four places):

Psalms 82:1–8:
1 Elohim standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the elohim.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
 4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are elohim; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O Elohim, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Are those the elohim you had in mind for your response above?

Judges and leaders can be referred to as "gods" in the sense of being authority figures 
wielding power to judge and administer God's laws among the people. Here's a bit more detail 
on how this concept was understood:

Authority and Representation: Judges and leaders were considered representatives of God's 
authority on earth. They administered justice and upheld the law, which in a way made them 
God's agents or representatives.

Just Rulership: They were expected to embody divine attributes like justice, mercy, and 
fairness. As judges, they were executing judgments that were meant to align with God's will.

Cultural Linguistics: The Hebrew word "Elohim" can mean "God" but can also refer to mighty 
ones or rulers depending on the context. This linguistic usage allowed for human judges to 
be called "gods" when they were acting in a judicial capacity, not implying divinity but 
rather authority.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Shame on you for disapproving of Latter-day Saints placing an importance upon interpreting Joseph Smith and all the other revelations correctly.

You seem to be asserting the teaching of Joseph Smith ("this is the way Heavenly Father 
became God") as meaning God only becomes God in the sense that he becomes the Heavenly 
Father of us.

This is not the way the teaching of Joseph Smith can be properly interpreted.

Let's have a look at the way it is worded in the 1997 Gospel Principles and Teachings of 
Joseph Smith (1938).

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: "When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, 
and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of 
the Gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of 
exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before 
you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a 
great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave" (Teachings of the 
Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348).

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God.

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf

There is nothing about him becoming a God in the sense of becoming a heavenly parent.

It is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; 
for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was 
God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. 
These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of 
the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God (History of the Church, volume 6, 
chapter 14).

https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-book/history-of-the-church-volume-6/volume-6-chapter-14
https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf

In addition, the LDS Heavenly Mother was not always a God.  She too had to become a God 
before becoming a Heavenly Mother.  There was a time when even the LDS Heavenly Mother was 
not a heavenly mother because she had not yet had spirit children of her own.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

I’ll rephrase what you say above correctly:  Heavenly Father [of worlds without number] is the God and Father of all other gods of all other realms.

This is how Joseph Smith taught it:  “Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you”.  (History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844])

In other words, all the Gods “before us” (compared to our place and time right now) became “kings and priests to God”, the one God who is above all others and is the God of all other gods.

Yes. I have seen this.  It's a reference to all the LDS Gods who were formed before the LDS 
Heavenly Father became a God.  The exalted spirit children of each Parent God supposedly 
become Gods to their own respective Parent God.

George Q. Cannon, former member of the First Presidency, referred to this as the race of Gods.
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

What I said is correct.  The Bible makes it clear that God has a plan to exalt those who follow him, even with them receiving the same glory that Jesus was given from the father in the beginning, sitting with God in his throne the same way Jesus sits with his Father in his throne, and receiving power, authority and inheriting all things.  If that’s not becoming like God and Jesus Christ, then you’ll need to explain why those Bible teachings on those topics are not correct.

I've heard this.  The LDS Plan of Salvation teaches that gods can be formed (made) through 
progression. Though "gods" is a term you see more frequently in LDS literature, when it boils 
down to it, the term "God" doesn't seem to be a key distinction when considering exaltation.

"All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like 
him—a god" (1997 Gospel Principles).

You keep using the phrase "becoming like God".  I'm not sure why you don't use the more 
appropriate phrase "becoming a God".  It's really at the core of the LDS concept of exaltation.

You do believe you have the potential to become a God and Heavenly Father yourself, right?
 

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 AM, InCognitus said:

Let’s just assume, for the sake of argument, that everything you say above is an accurate portrayal of LDS teaching (it’s not).  Where does the Bible teach contrary to any of those “teachings” as you describe them, making any of them out of harmony with the Bible?

Joseph Smith taught we could detect an evil angel by its sandy-colored hair. I suppose some 
could believe this is true since it is not out of harmony with the Bible.

But in general, misleading belief systems can take root by claiming that many principles are 
in harmony with the Bible, unless they can be specifically disproven.

The Bible has endured attacks, both inside and outside the church, for centuries.  We even 
see this attack making its way into the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 13:26).

Deception originates with Satan, whose modus operandi is to question the truth, as seen in 
his tactic of asking, "Did God really say...?"

[InCognitus]

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

Why is it important for some Latter-day Saints (who are both political/geographical Gentiles 
and non-literal blood Israelites) to be identified as Israelite and have a lineage made know 
to them via the patriarchal blessing?

Given the total dispersion of the tribes of Israel, who on earth today would be non-literal blood Israelites and how would we know that?  Do you know of some?

As for those literal Israelites who are dispersed throughout the Gentile nations, how are they to know their lineage unless God declares it to them?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

Were there any Gentiles in the Book of Mormon who came unto Christ and had their identity 
and lineage made know to them by the Lord?

The Book of Mormon prophesies of the future gathering of Israel, it doesn’t depict that gathering happening during the historical time frame recorded in the Book of Mormon.  So why would you expect to find a situation where a person’s lineage must be declared within the Book of Mormon text?  It’s just not necessary in those circumstances.

However, Jesus went and visited the remnant of the house of Israel on that land, and he recognized them as such at that time (3 Nephi 20:10, 25).

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

Since it appears you don't believe the early Christians were using the font upon the twelve 
oxen in the Jerusalem temple to proxy baptize for their dead, why did the Latter-day Saints 
choose to incorporate that type of font into their temple ordinance?

Did secrecy creep into the LDS temples as a result of the early leaders being involved with 
Masonry?

The baptismal fonts in Latter-day Saint temples are patterned after the Jerusalem temple for the same symbolism as it was used in the Jerusalem temple:  The twelve oxen represent the twelve tribes of Israel.  And our use of that same design has the added symbolism with respect to how the gathering of Israel is taking place right now in the latter-days:  With the three oxen looking toward the north, three looking toward the west, three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east, and so shall it be for the gathering from all parts of the earth.

As for “secrecy” regarding sacred things, that’s plainly biblical and it “creeps” into the LDS temples because they are from God and it is a sacred place.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

There is nothing in your last post that provides any biblical references saying that no temple ordinances were required for Gentile and Israelite Christians.  So where does the New Testament say that no temple ordinances were required for Gentile and Israelite Christians?

I mentioned this a few times. The highlighted portion is viewable at this link.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75766-ephraim-the-birthright-and-the-gathering/page/6/#findComment-1210206204#:~:text=In the context,fornication

Yes, you mentioned what you said in that link “a few times”, but that just proves that you are avoiding the question “a few times”.  Listing some of the things that New Testament Christians did in the temple doesn’t have anything to do with providing New Testament scripture to support your assertion (from your post on 11/05/2024) that “No temple ordinances were required for the Gentile and Israelite Christians.”   I realize that this may be a traditional belief that you hold, but there’s no scriptural support for such a belief.  No scripture says that no temple ordinances were required for Gentile and Israelite Christians.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

Before the resurrection of Christ, temple ordinances as practiced by the Israelites were 
mainly carried out in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple of Solomon, and then the Second 
Temple. These ordinances were part of the Mosaic Law and included rituals such as sacrifices, 
offerings, and various purification rites.

Sacrifices: Central to the temple worship, these included burnt offerings, sin offerings, 
and peace offerings, symbolizing repentance and the atonement.

Purification Rites: These were performed to cleanse individuals from ritual impurity, 
allowing them to participate in temple worship.

Festivals and Holy Days: Israelite temple practices were also tied to significant religious 
festivals like Passover, Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), and the Feast of Tabernacles.

As for Gentiles, they were generally not involved in the temple ordinances prescribed.

After the resurrection of Christ, early Christians, including both Jews and Gentiles who 
converted to Christianity, began to shift away from the traditional temple ordinances of 
the Mosaic Law. Instead, Christian worship focused on new ordinances and practices that were 
established by Jesus and His apostles. Here's a look at some of these changes:

Baptism: This became a central ordinance for both Jews and Gentiles entering the Christian 
faith. It symbolized purification, rebirth, and the acceptance of Christ's atoning sacrifice

The Lord's Supper (Sacrament/Communion): Christians participated in this ordinance to remember 
the body and blood of Jesus Christ, sacrificed for the salvation of humanity.

Laying on of Hands: This was used for conferring the Holy Ghost, ordaining individuals to 
priesthood offices, and blessing the sick.

As the early Christian Church grew, these ordinances became the new focus, replacing 
traditional temple practices.

This is flawed logic leading to a false conclusion and is not based on any biblical text.  Just because New Testament Christianity had practices and ordinances outside of the temple it doesn’t mean they were “replacing traditional temple practices”.  

In Old Testament times there were ordinances and practices that were symbolically comparable to some of the New Testament Christian ordinances and practices (circumcision, observance of the Passover, to name two), and there was no understanding that this was “replacing traditional temple practices” at that time.  

So your argument provides nothing to prove that Christians had no temple related ordinances.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

The physical temple in Jerusalem continued to hold cultural and 
religious significance for many Jews until its destruction in 70 AD, but for Christians, 
faith in Jesus Christ brought a new perspective on worship and covenant-making.

At least this part of what you say is true.

And the new perspective on covenant-making in New Testament times included performing ordinances for the dead, since Jesus opened the way for the gospel to be preached to those in spirit prison.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

Making covenants in a temple is not depicted in the Bible.  You find the same in Joseph's 
Book of Mormon.  It does not explicitly identify any temple ordinance being performed before 
or after the resurrection of Christ.

But both the Book of Mormon and the New Testament (for those who are made “pillars” in the temple of God, up through the millennial reign of Christ until the time when temple work is complete and New Jerusalem descends out of heaven) show that temples are important, and the fact that neither of these books discuss the ordinances being performed in those temples should cause you to pause and think about the problem with your argument.  They had temples and considered them important enough to mention, but they didn’t really do anything in those temples?  Really?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

There is nothing in the context of Revelation 3:12 to indicate that this temple is in heaven.  That is simply your belief that you are reading into the text.

I looked at the institute manual (Religion 211-212 - New Testament Student Manual) and it 
does not offer up any geographical location for the temple in the Book of Revelation – unless 
I missed it.

Where do you believe this temple is and what is the setting?

Revelation 3:12 talks about the "temple of my God" and the "New Jerusalem, which cometh down 
out of heaven".  This suggests a heavenly temple because it's connected with the New Jerusalem 
descending from heaven.

The promises given to those who “overcome” in this passage include that they become pillars in the temple of the God of Jesus Christ and have a permanent place in his temple.  As mentioned previously, a person who is a “pillar” is regarded as reliable or essential to the support of something (God’s temple in this case).  In other words, they support the temple and are an integral part of the workings therein.

In addition, they have three names written upon them:

1. The name of God (the God of Jesus Christ), showing they are God’s representatives.
2. The name of the city of the God of Jesus Christ, New Jerusalem, showing that they have citizenship in that city when the time comes for it to have a place on earth.
3. The “new name” of Jesus Christ, showing that they have become like him and are one with Jesus.

Your suggestion that this must be a “heavenly temple because it's connected with the New Jerusalem 
descending from heaven” doesn’t work, because New Jerusalem doesn’t have a temple in it as it is noted later on.  It simply means that those who participate in God’s temple will have citizenship in New Jerusalem.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Elsewhere in the book of Revelation there is a distinction between a temple in heaven and temples that are not in heaven.  For example, in Revelation 11:1-2, John is told to measure the temple (which harkens back to Ezekiel chapters 40-48), but he is also told to “measure” those that worship therein.  John is not being asked to take their measurements as if he is fitting them for clothing, rather this use of “measure” is to evaluate the people involved.  This is how the exact same Greek word is used in 2 Corinthians 10:12. It makes no sense for John to be asked to evaluate people who are already in heaven, so this must be an earthly temple being described.

The institute manual (Religion 302 – Old Testament Student Manual) refers to that temple in 
Ezekiel as a future temple in Jerusalem when the sons of Levi will offer the bloody sacrifices 
again to "round out and complete this ordinance in this dispensation".

I don't see any connection between the two.  In one case, an unidentified person is performing 
the measurement (Ezekiel 40:3). In the second case, it is John, in Revelation 11:1-2, who is 
instructed to measure the temple of God and the altar, and to count those who worship there. 

That altar is the same altar mentioned in Revelation 6:9 ("And when he had opened the fifth 
seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for 
the testimony which they held").

But getting back to your earlier statement - where do you see "temples that are not in heaven" 
in those passages in order for you to make a distinction?

I already answered that question in my last post.  

If the temple of Revelation 11:1-2 is in heaven, why would it make sense for John to need to “measure” those that worship therein?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

And in Revelation 14:15-17, the temple is mentioned twice.  The first time it says, “another angel came out of the temple” (verse 15).  And the second time it says, “another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven” (verse 17).  Why is a distinction made here unless the first temple mentioned is not in heaven?

It's just the way it was worded. Revelation 14:17 just re-enforces 14:15.  We also see this 
in Revelation 7:9-15

After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, 
and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed 
with white robes, and palms in their hands; 

And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and 
unto the Lamb. 

And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, 
and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, 

Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and 
might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen. 

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. 

No, we don’t “also see this in Revelation 7:9-15”.

Revelation 7:9-15 doesn’t say anything about the temple being in heaven.  Verse 15 says they are “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”. 

This language directly parallels the Old Testament practices of serving God in the temple of God on earth and there is no reason to assume any of it is taking place in heaven.

For example:

Exodus 28:30, “And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually.”

Deuteronomy 16:16, “Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the LORD empty”.

Exodus 25:8, “And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.”

And finally, Exodus 29:45–46, where the Lord says regarding the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, “And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God.  And they shall know that I am the Lord their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the Lord their God.”

So the language of Revelation 7:9-15 is drawing directly from the workings of the temple (or tabernacle) in Old Testament times.  And that temple/tabernacle was on earth, not in heaven.

While it is likely that the temple of Revelation 7:9-15 is in heaven (because of the martyrs shown to be there), we can see from the above that Revelation 7:9-15 is drawing directly from the language of the Old Testament temple practices on earth, so it's possible that the temple in Revelation 7 may not even be in heaven.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

The temple of God is in heaven.

"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" (Revelation 11:19).

There is a temple of God in heaven to be sure.  But not every mention of the temple should be assumed to be the temple that is in heaven.  The fact that some passages specifically refer to the temple which is in heaven compared to the temple in some non-specified place is all the more reason to recognize that there is a different temple in mind in those cases.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

So, your assumption (and it is clearly an assumption) that the temple mentioned in Revelation 3:12 is in heaven is invalid.  And the message is clear in any case:  Those who overcome participate in God’s temple, they are made “pillars” in God’s temple, proving that God’s temple is STILL relevant and important to New Testament Christianity.

That temple is the temple of the Holy Spirit, not physical temples which Latter-day Saints 
are building.  

So you are flipflopping on what you said.  Is the temple in Revelation 3:12 in heaven as you said previously, or is it the so called “temple of the Holy Spirit”?

As for “the temple of the Holy Spirit”, you have that backwards.  Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit.  How does it make sense for Jesus to say (in Revelation 3:12), him that overcometh will be made a pillar in the temple of their bodies?

And you seem so sure it is not the physical temples that Latter-day Saints are building but you have no biblical basis for that belief.

But CLEARLY the temple of God is important enough in New Testament Christian practice that those who “overcome” become pillars in that temple, and have a permanent place therein.  The temple of God is highly important to New Testament Christianity.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

As I mentioned before, as the early Christian Church grew, other ordinances became the new 
focus, replacing traditional temple practices. The physical temple in Jerusalem continued 
to hold cultural and religious significance for many Jews until its destruction in 70 AD, 
but for Christians, faith in Jesus Christ brought a new perspective on worship and covenant-making.

As for Gentile Christians, they were not saddled with performing any temple ordinances or 
cleansing rituals like the Jews were performing (John 11:55).

As I mentioned before, your logic is seriously flawed about other ordinances in the Christian Church replacing temple practices (that didn’t happen with Old Testament ordinances replacing temple practices).

And the temple at Jerusalem held temporary significance to the early Christians and it wasn’t the place where they performed the ordinances of the New Covenant.

As for the Gentile Christians (the “strangers”), they were promised (during Isaiah’s ministry) that at a future time they would have a place in God’s temple, as it says in Isaiah 56:1–8:

“1 Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.  3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.  4 For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;  5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.  6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;  7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.  8 The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.”

When do you think that was fulfilled or will be fulfilled?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Where does scripture say anything about the lack of a temple in the New Jerusalem that is in heaven before it comes down from heaven?

As for the lack of a temple in the New Jerusalem that comes down from heaven, that is the whole point of this part of our conversation.

The temple that is described in the Book of Revelation does not exist in the New Jerusalem 
for one obvious reason – the glory of the Lord.  

Yes, but having the glory of the Lord in that city isn’t a sufficient reason for John to take special notice and say “[a]nd I saw no temple therein”, unless under normal circumstances he would expect to see a temple therein.   Obviously temples were expected in John’s view of the future of Christianity, and it was therefore noteworthy to point out the lack of a temple in New Jerusalem.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Obviously the temple was important to New Testament Christians from the time of Christ,

What ordinances or covenants you believe the apostles were still performing or making in it
after Christ's Atonement and before it was destroyed?

This was already answered in my prior post.

And the rest of what I said (in the comment you cut off) is relevant to your question:

“Obviously the temple was important to New Testament Christians from the time of Christ, and the temple will continue to be important to true Christianity all the way through the Millennium.  And we know this because when the earth is finally celestialized (after all the temple work is completed during the Millennium) and the city of New Jerusalem comes down from heaven, it is then and ONLY THEN that it becomes noteworthy that no temple is needed therein.  The absence of a temple in that city signals the completion of the Lord’s work on earth in that regard, and the special mention of the absence of a temple in that city indicates that the presence of temples and temple work was important prior to that time.  (Otherwise, why point it out?)  The purposes for having temples on earth are complete only at that time and not before.”

I was clearly talking about the temple after the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, and I also already addressed the question about what they did prior to the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem in the same post.

Why do you keep repeating the same questions over and over again?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

The priesthood promises were through Abraham’s seed.  We already discussed this.

When do you believe Ephraim and Manasseh received any type of priesthood?

We already discussed how the priesthood of the patriarchal order was passed down prior to Israel breaking their covenant on Mount Sinai and prior to the introduction of the Levitical priesthood, several times earlier in our discussion (see specifically my post on 03/16/2024, and there are others).  Don’t reboot the conversation, the process was established and documented and we’re past that now.

Why do you keep repeating the same questions over and over again?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, that is exactly the point I was making.  They had their own prophets.  And when Israel was scattered, the prophets among the northern tribes went with them.  We no longer hear much about those scattered tribes in the biblical texts after that time because the remaining prophets were focused on the problems going on with those who remained in the land with them.

But God doesn’t forget his people.  Just because the Bible doesn’t contain any further record of those people and their prophets after they were scattered, it doesn’t mean that God didn’t continue to speak to them through his prophets, and it doesn’t mean Jesus ignored them and only thought about the Gentiles (as you suppose) when he talked about visiting his “other sheep” of the house of Israel.

The Book of Mormon has Jesus visiting the scattered tribes around the world after his 
resurrection and before he visited the Nephites (3 Nephi 16:1-3).  Then after the Nephites, 
he would visit other lost tribes (3 Nephi 17:4).

No secular or historical records support this.

3 Nephi 16:1-3 says nothing about Jesus visiting the scattered tribes around the world before he visited the Nephites as you say above.  Those verses refer to future visits and specifically say that Jesus has not visited them yet:

“For they of whom I speak are they who have not as yet heard my voice; neither have I at any time manifested myself unto them.  But I have received a commandment of the Father that I shall go unto them, and that they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered among my sheep, that there may be one fold and one shepherd; therefore I go to show myself unto them.”  (3 Nephi 16:2–3)

The Book of Mormon supports this, as will other records that will come forth in due time.

Do you believe God had no further dealings with the scattered tribes of Israel after they were scattered?  Do you believe they no longer had prophets of God?  Do you believe God did not give them any scripture?  Do you believe Jesus simply ignored them in his ministry to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Where does it say this pertains to Abraham’s “literal seed”?

Genesis 13:14-16 is referring to his seed all around the world, but you are mixing this up 
with the land inheritance allotted to Israel in the Old Testament. That was not for Gentiles. 
Unless you believe God allotted portions of land in Israel to non-Israelite tribes.

I’m not mixing up anything, what I said is based on the biblical text.  Genesis 12:7, 13:14-15, 17, 15:7, 18-21, and 17:8 contain the land promises to Abraham, and the land promises to Israel are based upon those same land promises made to Abraham. 

See for example, to Isaac:

“2 And the Lord appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:  3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;  4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed”. (Genesis 26:2–4)

And to Jacob:

“11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;  12 And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.”  (Genesis 35:11–12)

It’s all the same land.

You say this is “referring to [Abraham’s] seed all around the world”, but it’s also the same promises given to Jacob.  You can’t separate the two.  The land promised to Abraham is what this is all about. 

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Conditional upon what?

The land inheritance (in the land of Israel) was conditional upon obedience.  They will 
inherit that land again in the future when they are reconciled to God.  God does not forget 
his covenant with his people.

Back in your reply of 11/15/2024, you seemed to insinuate the land of Israel would be too 
small of a land mass to serve as the land inheritance for the Israelite tribes. You mentioned
billions and billions of people and included the land of America into the mix to alleviate 
the space problem.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75766-ephraim-the-birthright-and-the-gathering/page/5/#comment-1210201939

In light of a seminary manual teaching that the earth will become a celestial world, without 
telestial and terrestrial residents, do you still have billions in mind?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-student-study-guide/the-revelation-of-saint-john-the-divine/revelation-21-22?lang=eng

Uh, how many times do you need to ask the same questions over and over again?  You already asked this at least three times and you don’t seem to be reading my responses.  I made it VERY clear that the “billions” of people I had in mind were the celestial inhabitants of those lands.  And you kept trying to say I was not talking about the “saved” or celestial people when you asked the question again and again, when I made it VERY clear in the beginning.  And now you are doing it again.

You first insinuated that all the “saved” people would fit into the land of Israel in your post on 11/05/2024.  But in my response to that post on 11/14/2024, I calculated the number of those that would inhabit the celestialized earth at a minimum of 8 billion (and that was a very very conservative estimate given the percentage of children that died in their infancy prior to modern times).  And then in your post on 11/25/2024 you pretended that I didn’t say anything about the celestialized inhabitants of the earth (you claimed I was talking about the “saved and unsaved”, which I clearly was not), and you asked the same question again.  And I responded to that post on 12/14/2024 and repeated how I arrived at the numbers for the 8 billion people that inhabit the “celestial kingdom and inherit the earth”.  And now you are doing it again.

Can you please READ my prior responses again?  I don’t think you are being serious about this conversation, and if you continue to ignore my prior responses and not engage them when you respond to me then there’s no point in me continuing this discussion.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, and why was the seed determined through Isaac?   Genesis 17:21: “But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.”  The children of the covenant are the ones that receive the promises:

Romans 9:7–9: “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.  8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.”

Galatians 4:28–31: “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.  29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.  30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.  31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”

So what exactly is the difference?

The promises for the Gentiles don't relate to inheriting land in the land of Israel. There 
are promises/blessings solely for Israel and promises/blessings which apply to both Israel 
and the Gentiles.

Wait a minute.  Given that Romans 9:7-9 and Galatians 4:28-31 state those who come to Christ become the seed of Abraham and are counted as “the children of the promise”, where do you make a distinction (biblically speaking) in what those promises entail?  Show from scripture where Abraham’s “seed” means only the literal seed for receiving the land promises.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

There is nothing in the Book of Ether to indicate that some Jaredites didn't participate in 
the war and survived.  

We see the opposite.  The battles resulted in the annihilation of the entire Jaredite population, 
except for Coriantumr, who, according to the Book of Mormon, survived to fulfill a prophecy 
that he would be the last of his people.

The prophecy about Coriantumr is found in Ether 13:20-24, where it was foretold that if the 
Jaredites did not repent, they would be destroyed. It was prophesied specifically that 
Coriantumr would be the last surviving Jaredite and he would live to see another people 
inherit the land.

Reread my last response and engage with what I said.  I provided the evidence that you are ignoring.  (And this just adds to my prior comment about ignoring my response and not engaging in what I said in your next response).

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

Also, I see you mentioned Robert F. Smith and some "Reuse of Jaredite Names Among the 
Mulekites, Lamanites and Nephites".  

That's a weak proof.  With the plates of Ether, some names persisted among the Nephites. 

Here are three examples:

Coriantumr - the last Jaredite king, and also the name of a Nephite dissenter who led Lamanite 
armies.

Shiblon – a Jaredite name mentioned in the lineage of Ether and also the name of one of Alma 
the Younger's sons.

Moron – a Jaredite king.  While not directly a Nephite name, it is similar to "Moroni".

We see a similar naming process today.  We don't have the biblical Gabriel, Michael, Peter, 
John, etc living among us today but we have a record of their names from scripture.  Some of 
us name our children after them.  Some have even named their sons "Jesus". I am not aware of 
any Latter-day Saints calling their children Moron or Moroni (who was portrayed as possibly 
the most remarkable role model of faith, save Jesus, in Alma 48:17).

Your argument above assumes that the population in general had complete access to the records of Ether in the same way as people today have access to the Bible.  (Did the Nephites have printing presses?)  Furthermore, it doesn’t account for the possibly 300 years or so of direct contact with the people who resided in the land prior to their great battle.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

There is no question that the scriptures foretold that the time would come when the Gentiles would have the gospel preached to them as well.  But quoting those prophesies does not prove the timing on when Jesus told the apostles to start preaching to the Gentiles, which was not until Acts chapter 10.

Under leading of the Holy Spirit, Philip's preaching and baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch can 
be seen as a precursor to the broader mission to the Gentiles. It shows that even before Paul's 
commissioning by Christ and before Peter's meeting with Cornelius, there were already inklings 
of the gospel being shared beyond Jewish communities.

This example is far from conclusive.  The Ethiopian eunuch was coming to Jerusalem to worship (Acts 8:27), which likely indicated that he was Jewish and he clearly had Jewish training. 

The earliest Christian writings about this man also recognize that he had been fully instructed in the teachings of Judaism, saying:  “For nothing else [but baptism] was wanting to him who had been already instructed by the prophets: he was not ignorant of God the Father, nor of the rules as to the [proper] manner of life, but was merely ignorant of the advent of the Son of God, which, when he had become acquainted with, in a short space of time, he went on his way rejoicing, to be the herald in Ethiopia of Christ’s advent. Therefore Philip had no great labour to go through with regard to this man, because he was already prepared in the fear of God by the prophets. For this reason, too, did the apostles, collecting the sheep which had perished of the house of Israel, and discoursing to them from the Scriptures, prove that this crucified Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God” (see Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 23, paragraph 2).

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Jesus prophesied to Paul that he would be sent to the Gentiles, yes.  But you’ll notice that Paul didn’t start preaching the gospel to the Gentiles until after Peter received his vision.

Supposedly you know what Paul was doing during all the years between his encounter with Christ 
and his eventual meeting with Peter.

Maybe you believe Paul kept silent and didn't preach the gospel to anyone prior to meeting the 
apostles. When he finally met with Peter, there is no indication he added anything to Paul's 
understanding of the gospel.

You keep saying that you go by scripture, but then you go beyond what scripture says at every twist and turn.  Maybe you believe that scripture shows Paul teaching the gospel to the Gentiles (different than him preaching Christ in the synagogues) prior to Peter receiving his vision?   If that’s what you believe, then why not just show where the scriptures say that rather than trying to do mind reading of what you believe that I believe?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

Another way to interpret "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" is 
that Christ meant he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel in the country of 
Israel (mostly populated by the remaining descendants of all the 12 tribes who were living 
there), as opposed to also being sent to the lost sheep (Jews and Gentiles) living in other 
nations like Egypt or Italy.

But that would mean Jesus had a very narrow view of “the house of Israel” (which he did not).  Remember, the Lord said he would “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 11:12).  So I don’t think Jesus had only those in the immediate area in mind when he said “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

Something you said earlier - "A literal Israelite (by blood) can be a literal Gentile (in 
the political or geographical sense)".  So, Jesus supposedly visited these Gentiles (Israelites 
living in Gentile countries) after his recorded meeting with the Nephites (3 Nephi 16:1).

Yes, he did.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe that it was possible for the apostles or prophets to believe or teach anything that turned out to be false?  Or do you believe that God controlled their thinking so that they always perfectly understood what he was teaching them so they could also teach it to others perfectly?

Provide two key examples from your canon: the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, and the POGP.  I'll 
comment then.

The question is whether you believe this or not.  Examples aren’t necessary.

Do you believe it is possible for the apostles or prophets to believe or teach anything that turned out to be false?  Or do you believe that God controlled their thinking so that they always perfectly understood what he was teaching them so they could also teach it to others perfectly?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

The New Testament Christian church fell into apostasy when they rejected the leadership appointed by the apostles and defected from the true teachings that were handed down by the apostles, such as when they changed the identity of the true God into a “homoousious” being comprised of three persons.  That’s the correct meaning of apostasy.

Don't forget the 1997 Gospel Principles teaching that Christ's church was destroyed.

The Great Apostasy occurs yet in the future (2 Thessalonians 2:8-12; Revelation 13 and 19).

Yes, the Great Apostasy occurs in the future to the time of Jesus and the apostles, but not in the future to us.  It has already taken place.

As for the church being “destroyed”, the 1997 Gospel Principles manual makes it clear that this this “destruction” is referring to its existence of the organization “on earth”, not that it is completely destroyed.  It says:

“Apostasy from the True Church  Throughout history, evil people have tried to destroy the work of God. This happened while the Apostles were still alive and supervising the young, growing Church. Some members taught ideas from their old pagan or Jewish beliefs instead of the simple truths taught by Jesus. In addition, there was persecution from outside the Church. Church members were tortured and killed for their beliefs. One by one, the Apostles were killed. Because of the persecution, surviving Apostles could not meet to choose and ordain men to replace those who were dead. Eventually, local priesthood leaders were the only ones who had authority to direct the scattered branches of the Church. The perfect organization of the Church no longer existed, and confusion resulted. More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the destruction of the Church was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the Great Apostasy.” (Gospel Principles, 1997, p. 105).

So the “Great Apostasy” has to do with the existence of the church on the earth among men, not that it ceased to exist completely.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Where does scripture say the church of Christ on earth cannot be destroyed?

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; 
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".

Hell (Satan) cannot prevail against (destroy) what Christ is building.

The church of Christ has an enduring nature.

But we have already discussed that the gates of hades (the grave) shall not prevail against the church.  Matthew 16:18 isn’t saying the church on earth can never die (or be destroyed from the earth), rather it is saying that the gates of hades (death, the grave) will not keep it in the grave, because it is built upon Christ and the rock of revelation, which endures in heaven.  And Christ overcame death and therefore his church will rise again in the last days.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

Ephesians 2:19-20: describes the Church as being "built upon the foundation of the apostles 
and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." This underscores the concept 
of the Church being enduring and solid.

This underscores the concept that the church is built upon living apostles and prophets and a living Christ, yes.  But since the apostles and prophets were killed and the bishops that were appointed by the apostles were replaced by men “speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them”, it just proves that this foundation was removed from the earth for a period of time, until God restored it by revelation to his prophet.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

Daniel 2:44: in this verse, it speaks of a kingdom set up by the God of heaven that will 
"never be destroyed," which many interpret as a prophetic reference to Christ's eternal 
kingdom or Church.

This one disproves your assertion completely, and you took the verse out of context leaving out crucial information.  Look at the verse in context:

Daniel 2:44, “And in the days of these kings [What kings?  The kingdoms of the toes and feet that were part iron and part clay] shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.”

There are two very major problems with your use of this verse as a proof text for your claim:

First:   The “days of these kings” come in the latter days, long after:

• The head of Gold (Babylon)
• The chest and arms of silver (the Mede-Persian monarchy)
• The brazen belly and thighs (the Greco-Macedonian empire)
• The legs of iron (Rome – that kingdom was divided into the Western and Eastern empires beginning in 286 CE)
• Finally, the kingdoms of the feet and toes mixed of iron and clay (the modern kingdoms and states of the world that came about after the fall of Rome, having remnants of Roman influence [represented by the iron] among them). 

The kingdom that the God of heaven sets up that shall “never be destroyed” is in the days of these modern kingdoms (the feet and toes mixed of iron and clay) that came about after the fall or Rome (not at the time of Jesus).  So the timing of the setting up of the “kingdom, which shall never be destroyed” is way off and doesn’t fit your assertion.

Second:  The verse also specifically says that the kingdom that the God of heaven sets up “shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to another people”.  And do you remember what Jesus said to the Jews during his ministry?  Matthew 21:43 "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."  Thus, the “kingdom of God” at the time of Christ was left to another people, and not only does it disqualify that period of time for the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophesy, it also proves that it was subject to destruction at that time.

So this reference works completely against your claim and in fact proves that a kingdom that is “left to another people” might also be considered as “destroyed” according to biblical prophecy.  This is, no doubt, where the Gospel Principles manual got that language.

But this verse does demonstrate that the kingdom of God that is established in the last days “shall never be destroyed”, and the 1997 Gospel Principles manual points this out as well:

“The Church of Jesus Christ Will Never Be Destroyed   Since its restoration in 1830, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has grown rapidly in membership. There are members in nearly every country in the world. The Church will continue to grow. As Christ said, “This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations” (Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:31). The Church will never again be taken from the earth. Its mission is to take the truth to every person. Thousands of years ago, the Lord said he would “set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, . . . and it shall stand for ever” (Daniel 2:44).”  (Gospel Principles, 1997, p. 114)

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

Isaiah 54:17: this verse is sometimes cited in Christian teachings about protection and 
endurance, as it states, "No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper."

Remember, context is important. 

“No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.”  (Isaiah 54:17)

The servants of the Lord shall have ultimate triumph over their enemies at the final judgement, and this will be their “heritage” in God’s kingdom.  This has nothing to do with Christ’s church never being taken from the earth.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

1 Corinthians 15:24-25: these verses talk about Christ reigning until all enemies are defeated, 
which can imply the continued, unassailable presence of His kingdom.

Remember, context is important. 

1 Corinthians 15:20–25:

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

This is talking about the future kingdom of God that is established in preparation for the millennial reign of Christ that comes after the first resurrection from the dead.

It has nothing to do with whether or not Christ’s church will continue on the earth from the time that Jesus established it during his mortal ministry.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

Hebrews 12:28: this verse speaks of receiving a kingdom that cannot be moved, which is 
interpreted as the Church or the community of believers that remains steadfast.

There’s no question that God’s kingdom cannot be moved, but the point in question is to where God might take it at any given period of time.  This verse does not have anything to say on that point.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

Matthew 28:19-20: known as the Great Commission, where Jesus commands His disciples to make 
disciples of all nations and promises that He will be with them "always, even unto the end 
of the world." This can be seen as an assurance of His enduring presence and support for His 
Church.

Jesus was speaking to the eleven apostles at that time, and of course Jesus is with them even unto the end of the world (as he is with all of the apostles and prophets that he calls).  This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD (as it says in Isaiah 54:17). 

But this is not an indication that Christ’s church would always from that point forward remain on the earth any more than Jesus was telling his apostles that they would all remain on the earth.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

Revelation 12:6 – which some believe is the church of God. "And the woman fled into the 
wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand 
two hundred and threescore days.

I think you also believe this of your church.  Or maybe you think the devil can destroy the 
church you belong to after all.

This verse also goes against you, since it points out that Christ’s church went into hiding and was taken away from the main people on the earth.  As I said to you in a post on January 7:

“Whenever God's work on earth intensifies, so does the opposition against it.  The exact same situation is described in Revelation chapter 12, where "the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born" (v 4), and "when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child." (v 13)  And "the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood." (v 15).  And "the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (v 17)”

In response to the attacks upon the church by Satan, the woman (the church) “fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, the they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days” (v 6), and the woman was “given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and a half time, from the face of the serpent” (v 14). 

So when the “woman” (the church) fled into the wilderness, it depicted the time that the church was removed from among men on the earth and its presence on the earth was essentially “destroyed”.

And yes, the restored church in the latter days is the same church brought back to be among men on the earth again, as the Lord said it is the “coming forth of my church out of the wilderness” (Doctrine and Covenants 5:14, 33:5).

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Like when the apostle Paul believed, and taught others to believe, that the second coming of Christ would come during his lifetime?  Is that the kind of institutional apostasy you mean?

The Apostle Paul, in his letters, sometimes conveyed a sense of urgency about the Second 
Coming of Christ, which has led some to interpret that he taught it would definitely occur 
in his lifetime. 

Here's a verse that is often discussed in this context: 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17

Paul speaks about the coming of the Lord and uses language that includes "we which are alive 
and remain," which suggests he contemplated the possibility of being present at the Second 
Coming.

Paul's letters often reflect the early Christian anticipation of Christ's return, but they 
don't categorically state it would occur within his lifetime.

1 Corinthians 15:51-52 - In this chapter, Paul discusses the resurrection and says, "We shall 
not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the 
last trump." The use of "we" can imply he included himself among those who might experience 
these events firsthand.

These verses reflect the early Christian anticipation of Christ's return, which many early 
believers hoped would occur soon.

In addition to the passages mentioned, there's another passage that can be interpreted in 
a similar context regarding Paul's anticipation of the Second Coming: Philippians 4:5.

In this passage, Paul writes, "Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at 
hand." This phrase, "The Lord is at hand," has been interpreted by some as reflecting his 
belief in the imminence of Christ's return in his lifetime.

These are passages where some see hints of Paul's hope that the Second Coming might be near, 
during his time.

The same is true for Christians today. Christ can return even today.

Anticipating that Christ will return soon is different than proclaiming “we shall not all sleep”, but “we shall be changed” and “we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord” and “we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds”.  Paul is proclaiming that he will be among those who are alive at Christ’s second coming and that it would be in his lifetime.  But Paul was wrong in this belief. 

I think his views changed, however, after he became aware that the second coming would not come “soon” because there must be an apostasy first (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3), and that the apostasy had already begun during his lifetime (verse 7).  It seems he revised that position between his writing of the first and second epistle to the Thessalonians because the impending apostasy was revealed to him.

Does that mean the church was in an “’some’ institutional apostasy caused by false teachings, which indirectly lead to ‘some’ individual apostasy when these false teachings [were] taught and believed” during the time when Paul was teaching this false belief as you said in your last post?  (But that would not be the correct meaning of the word apostasy, of course).

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

The problem with your objection above is that it is entirely based on your personal beliefs, and not upon any scripture.  There is no place in the Bible that teaches that Jesus has “always been God”, or even that his God has “always been God”.  You mistakenly believe and keep asserting that “everlasting to everlasting” means “eternity to eternity”, but that’s definitely not the way the people who wrote the verse in Hebrew and Greek understood it as I showed in my last post.  You are free to believe that, but that’s not what the Bible teaches.

What do you believe the LDS Jesus was before he became the first spirit child of heavenly 
parents and later progressed into becoming a God?

I believe Jesus was the same being he has always been before he became a member of the Godhead and helped God the Father (the God of all other Gods) carry out his plan of salvation on our behalf.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

You keep saying this, but you have provided no actual biblical support for such a teaching.  Psalm 90:2 doesn’t teach that God is God from eternity to all eternity.

"From everlasting to everlasting you are God".  This is the same as "God is God from all 
eternity to all eternity".

You continue to wrest this scripture. Psalm 90:2 is teaching that God has been God from age to age, not from eternity to eternity.   

“Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou art God” (Psalm 90:2). 

Try finding a verse in the Bible that actually supports your view.  

See my post on 12/14/2024, as well as 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 01/05/2024.  You simply misconstrue that verse to fit your modern belief based on tradition instead of how that phrase was understood in Bible times.

This is getting tiresome.  Please interact with our prior discussion on this issue and engage in what the biblical text says instead of just repeating your belief based on tradition.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

"Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, 
and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).

You tend to believe it's "beside me there is no God of the nation of Israel".

You tend to believe there is no other city other than Babylon using the same language, right?

Isaiah 47:8 “Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children”

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

I believe Isaiah 44:6 in the same way as this rhetoric was used in scripture to indicate that no other Gods compare to the one God who is above all others.

Please engage in what the text says instead of just repeating your belief based on tradition.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

But since you appear to believe Jesus is not God from all eternity to all eternity, what 
scripture shows Jesus was an eternal (gnolaum) uncreated spirit, or that he was the first 
spirit child born to a heavenly mother, or identifies what other kind of being he could have 
possibly been before being born to heavenly parents?

Since you couldn’t find any scripture to support the idea that Jesus is God from all eternity to all eternity, why are you even asking this question?  I think you are relying on tradition rather than scripture, differently than you indicate below.

Please engage in what the text says instead of just repeating your belief based on tradition.

As to your other question, Abraham 3:22-25 is as close as we have that addresses it:

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;
25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;  (Abraham 3:22–25)

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

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]

Would you fill in the blanks so I can understand what you mean.

Before Abraham was [ what? ], Jesus is [ what? ].

Understand what *I* mean?  That’s a quote from the early Christian Father Origen (185-254 AD), not me.  Origen is the same early Christian that also taught the following about the “Logos” (the Word, Jesus), which is relevant to your question:

“And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”  (See Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, paragraph 2).

As for what Origen meant when he said, “Before Abraham was, I am”, I think that should be clear from the paragraph that I quoted above. 

And I also believe that Jesus is the Great “I AM” of the Old Testament, he was in the beginning with God the Father, and he was “God” in the beginning.  He existed before Abraham was born on the earth, and was in fact the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as the representative of God the Father.  For there is one God [the Father], and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).

Why do you suppose that the majority of Christians prior to the invention of the doctrine of creation out of nothing and prior to the first council of Nicaea (when Constantine added the word “homoousious” to the creed) believed and widely taught that God is the God over other gods, and that men become gods?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

 I’m not sure why you keep coming back to this, as it is impossible for there to be anything “before” or “after” God, who is eternal.  But for some reason you seem to think it’s possible.  How is it possible?

I understand that spirits are eternal (gnolum) based on what I read in the Pearl of Great 
Price.  But the point I am making is that some eternal spirit being (Heavenly Father of Earth 
for example) progressed into becoming a spirit child of his heavenly parents (the Grandfather 
God of Jesus) and then progressed into becoming a God and then populated Earth with his own 
spirit children (which are supposedly yet other eternal spirits who are formed into spirit 
children of another family).

So, in LDS theology, there is a time before the LDS Heavenly Mother and Father become Gods 
and then heavenly parents of our Earth.

Except the point you are making is not correct.  A few LDS members may hold such a view, but as I demonstrated in my prior posts, that doesn’t fit what Joseph Smith taught and what the revelations teach, which is that Heavenly Father [the God of worlds without number] is the one God over all other gods, and that when we learn how to be Gods ourselves (through God’s plan as provided in the scripture), we become “kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before” us.  We are always subject to the one God and Father who is above all others.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

"By obedience and devotion to the truth he [Jesus] attained that pinnacle of intelligence 
which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state" 
(Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, chapter 4).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/4-jesus-christ?lang=eng

Now doesn’t that sound exactly like what the early Christian Father Origen taught in the quote I provided above?

How do you explain that?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

So what Joseph Smith taught about God is totally consistent with scripture, including LDS scripture.

How did a man and woman become Gods prior to them becoming the heavenly parents of those on 
our Earth?

God the Father is the God of those on our earth and of worlds without number.  He is the God of all other gods, and thus more advanced than any other.  And Joseph Smith taught that all the Gods “before” us are made kings and priests onto him, the one God who is above all.  So your question doesn’t fit.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

And you are totally misconstruing Joseph Smith.  He didn’t teach the sequence of events in the way you portray it.  Joseph Smith said that God “dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did”, but not in the same order that you paraphrase it above.

Did the LDS Heavenly Mother exist as a God when she was born to mortal parents on her home-world?

Who atoned for the sins of the woman who would later become the Heavenly Mother of Earth?

I’m not going to go down the speculation rabbit hole with you.  If you can show me where any of the things you describe above are revealed in scripture (Latter-day Saint scripture or otherwise), then we can discuss it.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

The 1997 Gospel Principles taught, "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

Do you see a difference between "men can become gods" as opposed to "men can become Gods?"

You are obviously out of things to talk about in this thread, because you are just repeating things you have brought up many times before and have already been addressed.  Is there a point in continuing this conversation  with you since you have clearly run out of things to say?

I'm adding this to my list, like 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, 07/10/2023, and 11/05/2024.  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.  

But back to my point, the earliest Christians (the ones that were the closest to the time of Jesus and the apostles and prior to the first council of Nicaea when the “homoousious” Father and Son was invented) clearly taught that men become Gods and achieving Godhood.  Why do you suppose that was the case?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

But the Greek word génos does not refer to creation, at least not in the sense that we normally refer to creation.  It is teaching that we are the very same kind of being that God is.  We are related to him, his offspring.

If we are the same kind of being that God is, then that would mean we are already gods like 
God is a god.

Or it means that you are using an incomplete definition of what it means to be “God”, one that isn’t consistent with the scriptural texts and are not considering all the possibilities.

God the Father (the God above all gods) has many attributes.  Among them I would list the following:

1. He is an eternal being (he has always existed).
2. He has all power
3. He has all glory
4. He is all knowing
5. He is perfect
6. He rules over all other beings

There are many other attributes that we could list.  But this is a basic list of attributes that are necessary for a being to be “God”.

Now you say that since Paul taught that we are the same kind of being that God is (and he did in fact teach that as we discussed), “then that would mean we are already gods like God is a god”. 

Surely you can see the fallacy of your argument given the list that I provided above.

Paul clearly taught that we are all the same kind of being as God (we are his génos), and that only covers point #1 on my list.  But none of us have all power, all glory, are all knowing, are perfect, nor do we rule over all other beings.

But through the atonement of his Son Jesus Christ, God the Father provides a way for us to receive all those other attributes (except that in point #6 we will still be in subjection to the one God who is above all other gods, the same way Jesus is subject to him).   He teaches us in the Bible that we can receive all those things: His power, his glory, knowledge, perfection through the atonement of his divine Son, and even him granting that we can sit with him in his throne in the same way Jesus sits with him in his throne, ruling over others.

So no, your logic is flawed.  Just because we are the same kind of being as God doesn’t mean we are already like him in every respect.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

If no (if God is not a god), then what kind of being is God?

If yes (if we are a god like God is), then why do people become gods like Doctrine and 
Covenants 132:19-20 says?

Since we are human beings and Heavenly Father is supposedly a human being too, then we are 
gods like Heavenly Father is a god, right?

Doctrine and Covenants 132:17 says, "For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they 
cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved 
condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever 
and ever".

All of these things are answered by my response above where I described your flawed premise.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

If the offspring of God are the same kind of being as God is (a god), how is it that those 
who remain single (the same offspring of God) are now considered angels, and not gods?  Does 
this mean they transition from having the same nature as God to adopting the nature of angels?

What is “the nature of angels”, exactly?  Please provide a definition from scripture. 

And I’ll save you some time.  Don’t try to refer to Hebrews 2:16, because you’ll notice that the KJV has italics where it uses those words, “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.”  And as I’m sure you know, the KJV translators used italics when they were adding words that they thought would clarify the text.   Compare that passage to other translations:

NKJV:  “For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.”

ESV:  “For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham.”

And, as I explained previously, an “angel” is just a job description.  Jesus is called the “angel of the LORD” in the Old Testament (see the Got Questions website article, Who is the angel of the Lord?).  Does that mean Jesus has “the nature of angels”?   When Malachi 2:7 says that a priest is the “messenger [Hebrew:  mal'ak, angel] of the LORD of hosts”, does that mean that human priests have “the nature of angels”?

To be an “angel” is just a job description, it is to be a messenger, a messenger of God in this context.

Also see the answers given to you in the thread you started under the name GoCeltics on this same exact topic (and you wonder how we know you are the same user).

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

Do Satan and his evil angels (supposedly the offspring of heavenly parents too) lose their 
status of being gods (the same kind of being God is)?  

Would you consider Satan as a human being too because he is supposedly a literal offspring 
of Heavenly Father (of the same type of being as Him)?

All of this is faulty reasoning based on your false premise as already explained above.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Genesis 2:7 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground [body], and breathed into his nostrils the breath [spirit] of life; and man became a living soul.”

God formed man’s body from the dust of the earth, but the spirit of man came from the presence of God.  And in like manner he could raise up children unto Abraham (from the dust of the earth or from stones, same thing).  This doesn’t do anything to change our view on Paul’s teaching that we are the same kind of being as God, his offspring, because our spirits originate with God in either case.

You mentioned the literal creation of Adam from the dust of the earth.

Do you believe the dust is literal just like the rib of Adam is literally used to form Eve?  
Or do you use a literal sense in one creation but a figurative sense for another?

The depictions of events in scripture can have parts that are literal and other parts that are figurative.  Jesus teaching that he is the “bread of life” in John chapter 6, and him saying “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you”, is a good example of a figurative teaching that had a literal application:  Partaking of the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, where literal bread is eaten but is symbolic of the Lord’s flesh.

In addition, we need to be aware of the various genres of the books of the Bible.  The Bible contains historical narratives or epic stories, legal writings, wisdom literature, poetry (i.e. the Psalms), prophecy, apocalyptic literature, and epistles, and some books can contain multiple genres (such as the parables told by Jesus in the gospels). 

But regarding your question, the first chapters of the book of Genesis aren’t intended to give us a literal depiction of every event related to creation of the earth and origin of man, rather they are there to teach us principles about creation and why we are here on earth.  I consider it to be a temple narrative that explains the fall and our need for a Savior.  So even though the narrative of Genesis is symbolic and representative of the creation period, there are still important literal teachings that are conveyed there.

When Adam was created from the “dust of the earth”, it means his physical body was literally formed from the same elements that make up the earth.  And every single human being born on this planet is formed from the same elements and with the spirit of the person coming from the presence of God, even when humans are produced through procreation.  So the basic process is the same for all of us, we’re just not literally created from the stuff in a dust pan that you get after sweeping the floor.

And Eve being formed from Adam’s rib is in a different part of scripture, several verses after it says that God “created man in his own image… male and female created he them” in Genesis 1:27), so it is obviously symbolic narrative to teach us that man and woman are to be companions, side by side, and are essential to each other’s completeness and well-being.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

Why did God put Adam into a deep sleep before Eve was formed?

Can you imagine how Eve might have turned out if God had allowed Adam to be awake during Eve’s creation and Adam had a say on what Eve should be like?  That would be a disaster.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

In Acts 17:28-29, Paul taught the Athenians that we are all the offspring of God in the literal sense (we are the same kind of being, the genus of God), which has nothing to do with adoption and applies to all mankind since Paul was explaining these concepts to nonbelievers.

"In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, For 
we are indeed his offspring. Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine 
being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man" 
(Acts 17:28-29).

Did the Athenian poets believe humans are the literal offspring of a heavenly mother?  If 
yes, what name (s) did they refer to her as?

I’m not sure why you are asking me this question, because in your post on January 2, you said:

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

So you seem to already know the answer.

Paul intentionally used the Greek word génos when speaking to his pagan audience when he taught them that we are in fact the “offspring of God”.  Why would Paul use a term that his Greek audience would understand in the way you described it if Paul did not intend for it to be understood that way?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

But because of sin none of us can be legal heirs of God and all that he has, so we must become his children in a spiritual or behavioral sense, and so we must be adopted as children of God and heirs of God through the atonement of Jesus Christ by believing in him and following him, as is taught in John 1:12 and elsewhere.

I see some reference to this in Romans 8:14-17.

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not 
received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, 
whereby we cry, Abba, Father.  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we 
are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with 
Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together".

The heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ have all these qualities:
    • They are led by the Spirit of God.
    • They are the sons of God.
    • They are adopted.
    • They refer to God as Abba Father.

But Joseph Smith taught that these "heirs" are exalted beings.

"... [The righteous who have died] shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal 
glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs 
with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, 
until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as 
those who have gone before".

"They who obtain a glorious resurrection from the dead, are exalted far above principalities, 
powers, thrones, dominions and angels, and are expressly declared to be heirs of God and joint 
heirs with Jesus Christ, all having eternal power [see Romans 8:17]".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-18?lang=eng

What’s your point?  There is nothing in Romans 8:14-17 that contradicts or excludes what was said by Joseph Smith.  The qualities listed in Romans 8:14-17 are the same that lead to what Joseph Smith is talking about in the quote you posted, and all of it is biblical:

• They inherit the same power: “[H]e that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.” (Revelation 2:26–27)
• They inherit the same glory: “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one” (John 17:22).
• They inherit the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” (Revelation 3:21).
• They refer to God as their Father: “He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” (Revelation 21:7)

So what’s the issue here?

Even the early Christians believed this:

Clement of Rome (35 AD – 99 AD):

  “But they who with confidence endured [these things] are now heirs of glory and honour, and have been exalted and made illustrious by God in their memorial for ever and ever. Amen.”  (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 45).

Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195):

“How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?  Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created?  How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker?  For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost not make God, but God thee. If, then, thou art God's workmanship, await the hand of thy Maker which creates everything in due time; in due time as far as thou art concerned, whose creation is being carried out.  Offer to Him thy heart in a soft and tractable state, and preserve the form in which the Creator has fashioned thee, having moisture in thyself, lest, by becoming hardened, thou lose the impressions of His fingers. But by preserving the framework thou shalt ascend to that which is perfect, for the moist clay which is in thee is hidden [there] by the workmanship of God.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 39, p. 2)

“And again: ‘God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods.’ He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God—that is, the Son Himself—has gathered by Himself. Of whom He again speaks: ‘The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken, and hath called the earth.’ Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, ‘God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence;’ that is, the Son, who came manifested to men who said, ‘I have openly appeared to those who seek Me not.’ But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, ‘I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High.’ To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the ‘adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father.’”  (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 6, p.1)

So what is your point?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Which way do you think was Paul’s intended meaning when he used the phrase “we are the offspring of God” (using a Greek word that means we are the same kind of being as God) when teaching a pagan Greek audience about our true relationship to God?  How did Paul want his pagan Greek audience to understand it?

And how does the idea of being adopted as sons and daughters of God through faith fit with the choice of words that Paul used in that passage, given the meaning of the word génos as it was understood by the Greek speaking people in Paul’s day, and according to how the word génos was used throughout the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament)?

I go with using the plain meaning of the text rather than trying to find some way to get around the plain meaning.

I saw several commentaries on how to explain this.

The sad part is that none of the commentaries deal with what the Greek word génos actually means in this context (although one of the commentaries you quoted comes close, but tip toes around the implications).  Most commentaries avoid the plain meaning of what Paul is teaching because the implications don’t fit with some of the modern traditions.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

[1]

The argument of the apostle is this: "Since we are formed by God; since we are like him, 
living and intelligent beings; since we are more excellent in our nature than the most precious 
and ingenious works of art, it is absurd to suppose that the original source of our existence 
can be like gold, and silver, and stone. Man himself is far more excellent than an image of 
wood and stone; how much more excellent still must be the great Fountain and Source of all 
our wisdom and intelligence." See this thought pursued at length in Isaiah 40:18-23.

[2]

We are the offspring of God; this is spoken by the apostle in a poetical expression, according 
unto what he had cited. We are indeed the children, and in our souls bear the image of God. 
But as many as have the Spirit of adoption, they partake of God's holiness, and imitate his 
goodness, and are more like unto him, by whom they are begotten again unto a lively hope, 1 
Peter 1:3; and at the resurrection they will appear unto all to be his children, when they 
shall be acknowledged his heirs, and coheirs with Jesus Christ, Romans 8:17.

Neither of these commentaries directly deals with the plain meaning of the Greek word génos and how it would be understood by Paul’s pagan audience, and why Paul would use the word to explain our relationship to God unless he really meant that we are the same kind of being as God, his very offspring.  But the second commentary you quoted comes really close, and I like the direction it is headed (it just doesn’t explain it completely).

The first commentary you quoted admits that “we are like him” (like God) but then goes downhill from there and destroys Paul’s argument by ignoring the meaning of the word génos and tries to explain the teaching away by saying that “we are formed by God”, without considering that gold and silver and stone are also “formed by God”.   Paul’s Greek audience would be totally confused if that is what Paul really meant, since his audience would understand the word génos to mean that we are the same kind of being as God and are his literal offspring.

The second commentary you quoted is much better, since it states that “[w]e are indeed the children [of God], and in our souls bear the image of God”, which partially captures what Paul is saying by using the word génos, for our spirits are indeed the same kind of being as God as his offspring, bearing the image of God.  And it also explains (in addition to the fact that we are indeed the children of God) that those who have the Spirit of adoption partake of God’s holiness and imitate his goodness and are more like him.  This is a good observation, because that commentary recognizes that everyone of us (believers and nonbelievers) are children of God first and foremost, and that there is a progression for those who believe in Jesus Christ and are spiritually born again (we are “begotten again” as the commentary states) and adopted as God’s heirs, potentially becoming exactly like God.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

A heavenly mother is not required.

But in your post on January 2, you said:

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

Why did Paul teach the pagans that we are the génos (offspring) of God in Acts 17:28-29 if he didn’t mean what he said?  I think Paul knew what he was teaching them and knew how his audience would understand his quote from the Greek poet, don’t you?

Do you think Paul was trying to deceive them?  Paul had several converts after giving that speech (“certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them” - Acts 17:34).  Did they believe what he taught them based on a lie?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

So the Got Questions website got it right (according to you) in the part of the article you quote above, but not later in the same article when they translated the creed as, “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”?  Is that right?

As for the definition that Jesus is divine in the same way as the Father is divine, Latter-day Saint doctrine agrees with that 100%.  But that doesn’t explain how they are “one God” in the way that homoousious has come to be understood today (like the way the rest of the article explains it as “one being”).

Jesus is divine as the Father is divine. Right.  But we are not divine like the Father is 
divine.

As I said before, the Trinity is beyond my ability to explain it.  No one can truly comprehend 
it.  Even the Catholics give it their best shot.

https://catholiceducation.org/en/culture/one-in-being-with-the-father.html

Begotten, not made (not formed, not organized) into a spirit child of heavenly parents.

I cannot go beyond scripture

But you are going beyond scripture.  Scripture says Jesus was the “firstbegotten”.  You also add (going beyond scripture) that he was “not made”, and I agree with that (he is eternal).  But then you go further beyond scripture and claim he was “not formed, not organized.. into a spirit child of heavenly parents”, but where does scripture say that?  (It doesn’t).

You admit that Jesus was begotten.  You admit you don’t comprehend it, yet you certainly have no problem saying what you believe it does NOT mean based on your tradition.  You claim that you base your beliefs entirely on scripture and not on tradition, but your responses repeatedly show that tradition is what determines your beliefs instead of scripture. 

I have more to say on this below.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

so I stick with its teaching of there being only one God. Gods 
cannot be formed before him. Gods cannot be formed after him.

Right, it’s impossible for anything to be “before” or “after” an eternal God, but who cares?  You’ll take impossibility before giving up tradition.  

Unless the “before” or “after” in Isaiah 43:10 refers to a specific point in time in the context of that chapter (which it does – when God declared himself to be the God of Israel – see verse 12), you are making the scripture into nonsense.  Beings that are co-eternal with God don’t become gods “before” or “after” him, because he is eternal, and they are eternal.

And you pick and choose your scriptures.  You believe there is only one God, yet God says he is the “God of gods”.  But you don’t believe that, so you attempt to explain away the “God of gods” by making God the God of non-existent idols that are nothing, again leaving you with a God that speaks nonsense. 

Why not just take scripture for what it says in context?  It makes much more sense that way.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Not just the Latter-day Saints, but the pre-Nicene Christians as well.  Although you may also believe the Godhead consists of three Gods if you do not believe the three persons are one being (I’m still trying to figure that out).

But from the biblical point of view, the three Gods are one God in unity of will and purpose, just as Jesus taught in John 17:11 and John 17:20-23.

Do you have an LDS teaching that clearly says the Godhead is three Gods?

The Bible teaches that God the Father is God (John 17:3), and that God the Father is the God of Jesus Christ (Revelation 3:12), and Jesus is God (John 1:1-3), and it vaguely teaches that the Holy Ghost is God (Acts 5:1-4 vaguely teaches that).  So there are the three Gods in the Godhead, and they are “one” in unity as Jesus taught in John 17:11, 20-23.

Joseph Smith also taught that.
 

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

If God has sufficiently revealed his true identity in scripture, then why are there so many different interpretations of God’s true identity from scripture?

Because they are influenced by un-godly sources. Muslims know about the Bible, but they reject 
what it teaches about Him. Hindus have access to read the Bible but instead they make gods 
of wood and stone.

In our particular case, I see several significant differences: God has always been God vs. 
God has not always been God.  Gods cannot be formed vs. Gods can be formed.

Was the Emperor Constantine an “un-godly source” when he had the council insert the word “homoousious” into the Nicene Creed which formed the basis for the modern doctrine of the Trinity?  Where is that found in scripture?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

The Latter-day Saint interpretation is informed by additional revelations of course, revelations that give us more details about God than what is contained in the Bible, but they are in agreement with the Bible.

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".

Yes, God is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting and the same unchangeable God, and those teachings are in agreement with the Bible.  And Jesus is from all eternity to all eternity too.  We believe those things 100%.  What’s your point?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

God is not a being who once existed as an eternal, uncreated intelligence who somehow was 
formed into a spirit child of heavenly parents, who then became a God, who then became a 
literal heavenly father of our Earth.

You are absolutely right, God isn’t what you describe above.  Those aren’t the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I have explained several times how your mischaracterization of our beliefs isn’t what the scriptures teach or what Joseph Smith taught.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

Which LDS scripture (s) shows these are in harmony with the Bible?
    • A heavenly mother exists, she is married to a heavenly father, and she begat us?
    • Jesus became a God?
    • Jesus has not always existed eternally as God?
    • Heavenly Father was once a man who became a God?
    • The Holy Spirit is a brother of Jesus who also progressed to Godhood?

#1 – see the discussion about how the Greeks understood Paul’s teaching that we are all the génos (offspring) of God (as you explained it), earlier in this thread.

#2, #3, and #4, already discussed in prior posts with you (many times over).

#5, Which lesson manual teaches that one?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

How exactly was Jesus begotten by the Father before the worlds?  And how was Jesus the “firstbegotten” that was brought into the world?

I don't know.  But Christ is begotten. He is not made (not formed, not organized) from an 
eternal, uncreated intelligence into a spirit child.

You don’t know.  You don’t know that he was also “not formed, not organized”.  You don’t know any of the things you said there.  

But, scripture says Jesus was the “firstbegotten” of the Father, begotten before he came into the world.  We need to know what this means.  See more on this below.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

Jesus created Lucifer, a spirit being.  How he did this, I don't know.

How you believe that I don’t know, since scripture never says such a thing.  

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

If you believe he was “begotten, not made” as your response above implies, then how was Jesus begotten before the worlds?  What does that mean?

I found one article that describes what it means more than I ever could.

https://bibleask.org/term-begotten-son-really-mean/

Uh, that article doesn’t define how Jesus was “begotten before the worlds”, it’s talking about something completely different, the meaning of “only begotten” Son, which is based on a completely different Greek word and is an entirely different concept and has nothing to do with being “begotten before the worlds”.

Here’s a better article:    Why Begotten and Not Made

https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-begotten-and-not-made

Quoting the article:

Quote

 

I think that perhaps C.S. Lewis described it best in Mere Christianity:

We don’t use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers, and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set—or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive.

Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God, just as what man creates is not man.

 

Does that explain it to you now?

See also: 

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/eternally-begotten-son

What C.S. Lewis said above can also apply to Paul teaching that we are all the offspring of God.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

They did teach that God the Father is the God of Jesus Christ, making Jesus a separate God from God the Father.

Where does LDS scripture explicitly indicate the Godhead is three Gods?

As I said above, the Bible teaches that God the Father is God (John 17:3), and that God the Father is the God of Jesus Christ (Revelation 3:12), and Jesus is God (John 1:1-3), and it vaguely teaches that the Holy Ghost is God (Acts 5:1-4 vaguely teaches that).  So there are the three Gods in the Godhead, and they are “one” in unity as Jesus taught in John 17:11, 20-23.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

But God lives and God hasn’t changed,

Right. The God who always was and is.

The LDS Heavenly Father:  originally an uncreated, eternal intelligence > then spirit child 
of his heavenly parents > then a mortal on some earth > then becomes a God > then becomes a 
heavenly parent of Earth.

Compare what you said above to the following quote from Hebrews 13:8:

“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.”

The Biblical Jesus:  Originally the “firstbegotten” of the Father (Hebrews 1:6), he was “made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), he “grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him” (Luke 2:40), and he “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” (Luke 2:52).  And he “learned obedience” and was “made perfect”, and “became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Hebrews 5:8-9), and was “highly exalted” by his Father and “given” a name above every other name (Philippians 2:9).  And now he sits at the right hand of the Father, sitting with his Father in his throne (Revelation 3:21). 

Can you explain the difference between what you said above compared to what scripture says of Jesus?

As for how God “hasn’t changed”, it is the same way that Jesus Christ is “the same yesterday, and today, and forever”, which obviously has nothing to do with them once becoming man.  Rather, it has to do with their eternal truths and teachings, and their communication to men through revelation to prophets and apostles. 

God still reveals his word to prophets and apostles today just the same as he has done since the beginning (he is the “same”).  And the things that God reveals about himself today are in total harmony with his teachings in the Bible, whether every detail is found in the Bible or not.

At some point either Jesus will return and reveal a whole lot more to us about God, or you and I will die and come before the judgement seat of Christ and learn a lot more about God.  When that happens are you going to pick apart and criticize everything that you find out about God that wasn’t detailed in the Bible?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Nor does the Bible say that they existed eternally as Gods.  So we’re right in line with the Bible on that one.

It seems you are admitting that the LDS Jesus and Heavenly Father became Gods for they have 
not always existed eternally as God.

But you never show it with any LDS scripture.

I have explained to you previously that God the Father has always been the most advanced being of all and the God over all other Gods, scripture makes this clear.  And I have also explained what Joseph Smith was teaching when he said that God “came to be God” in relation to us, as he put it in that context. 

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe that the three persons of the Godhead are each Gods, but are one God in unity like the Bible teaches and the early (pre-Nicene) Christians and the Latter-day Saints believe?

They are one God in unity.

I'm not able to explain the Trinity nor go beyond the scripture so I will stick with that.

Why not just go with what Jesus says in scripture in John 17:11 and John 17:20-23?  What is wrong with Jesus’ own explanation on how the three Gods are “one God”?  Why try to make up something different than that or imagine it to be some other way?  Is it tradition?  Or what is it?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

CFR on Joseph Smith teaching that God is a “three-headed monster”.

If you are thinking of the portion of Joseph Smith’s sermon in the grove (on June 16, 1844) that you chopped up and misquoted by omitting relevant context on your web page and included in your post on 10/02/2024, then I’ve already discussed how you completely misrepresented that statement.

Excuse me.  "Three-headed monster" is not there, but some form of monstrous symbolism is 
implied in History of the Church, volume 6, chapter 23.  Maybe he was thinking of a one head, 
three-bodied God:

You’re not even close, and there is no excuse for this.  I explained why you are misrepresenting this quote in my post on October 20 and you continue to misrepresent it dishonestly now.  

Your website quotes it like this:

"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" 

But this is the full quote (below) including the context you omitted (in red), showing that Joseph Smith was quoting from John 17 where Jesus prayed for all believers are to be one with Jesus and the Father in the exact same way Jesus is one with his Father.  And, under the Trinitarian idea of a “homoousious” Father and Son, all the believers would need to become “one being” as well:

“Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me." "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster.”

As I said in my post on 10/20/2024:

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.”

There’s nothing “three-headed” or monstrous about the Trinity in Joseph Smith’s statement.  He is simply pointing out that the biblical definition of how Jesus and Father are one doesn’t work with the Trinitarian idea that the three persons are one being.  And if all who become one with Jesus and his Father in the same way Jesus is one with his Father, it would indeed be “monstrous” if it was meant in the same way as the homoousious Trinity is understood today.

Now you’ve been corrected on this several times.  Are you going to remember it this time?  Or do you even care?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Tradition is a hard thing to overcome.  Jesus and his apostles encountered a lot of opposition to their teachings because of traditions.  As a result, they were hated and persecuted, spoken against everywhere (Acts 28:22), were said to be teaching heresy (Acts 24:14), had false things said against them and were said to be speaking blasphemy and teachings doctrines contrary to scripture (Acts 6:11-14, Acts 21:27-28).  This all sounds very familiar.  And ironically, those that eventually killed the apostles thought they were doing God a service (John 16:2).  So those who clung to false traditions were opposing the true teachings of God in the name of God!

So, in that context how would you recognize the difference?

I would stick with scripture instead of tradition.

But you don’t do what you say.  You believe (as you have said on this board) all kinds of things that aren’t found in scripture that come from tradition and follow interpretations of scripture that are based on tradition even when the original languages don’t support that interpretation.  And when scripture clearly says things that are contrary to modern Christian tradition (like the Bible teaching that God is the God over other gods, or that we are all the very same kind of being as God, we are his génos, his offspring, or even in how Jesus says he and his Father are “one”) you appeal to traditional interpretations that try to get around the plain meaning of the text and add beliefs that aren’t even found in scripture.

Furthermore, as I noted in the quote from my prior post above, many of the Jews at the time of Christ defended their traditional beliefs against Christianity by using scripture (as do most of the divergent denomination of Christianity in the world today).  So obviously the truth can’t be determined by using scripture alone.  So what makes the difference?

The apostle Paul taught: “For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.  And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost” (1 Thessalonians 1:5-6).   He also wrote, “my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”  (1 Corinthians 2:4–5)

Isn’t relying on scripture alone the same as “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof”?  Where is the continuing revelation, the revelation from God that God reveals to us by the Spirit, the “deep things of God”?  Where is the “Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God”?  (See 1 Corinthians chapter 2).

Without revelation from God as part of the whole package (and Paul clearly taught that revelation from God is an essential part of the whole package), how would you know your interpretation of scripture is any better than the Pharisees or the Jehovah’s Witnesses?  Honestly, how DO you know?  Is it tradition?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

  So a true minister of Christ would come teaching with the Spirit and power of God and would also have the spirit of revelation and encourage those who receive the word to seek out revelation to know the things of God, even the hidden things of God, and by revelation they would know where the teachings come from.

That’s how I would know if the teachings came from God or not.

And a minister (like Joseph Smith) can come teaching a foreign god and lead his people to
worship that being.

 Except that’s not what Joseph Smith did.

Joseph Smith came teaching of the very same God as scripture, a God who reveals himself to mankind by revelation (unlike the way men in our day try to confine God to a single book that they get to fight over and interpret all by themselves, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof), and Joseph Smith’s teaching was accompanied with the Spirit and of power of God “and in much assurance”.   He taught “the wisdom of God in a mystery, even hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory”, and he came teaching the many things that God has prepared for those that love him.  And we have come to know those things because, “God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.”  It’s not by “the spirit of the world”, but by “the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.”

There’s a big difference.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Neither do I, since scripture teaches that God the Father is the God of “all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32).

Are these "gods" beings that will be formed into gods in the future?

Of course not.  An individual that is the same kind of being as God can’t be “formed” into a “god”, they follow God’s plan and learn to be “one” with him and then God trusts them to be given the same power and authority that he has.  God gives them that power and authority, and they represent him.

Thus, God is the God over all other gods that have followed his plan to become like him.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

How are the gods of D&C 121:32 different or similar to the gods in Psalm 82:1?

The “gods” of Psalm 82 are part of ancient Israel beliefs that God appointed “gods” over the nations.  I don’t think there is any correlation of that to anything in Doctrine and Covenants 121:32 other than the general idea that the one God who is above all rules over all the “gods”.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Those who become gods do so through the atonement of Jesus Christ and according to God’s plan as defined in the Bible and elsewhere.  However, they are not “formed” to be the God of Israel either before or after the Eternal God declared himself to Israel as scripture says.

If I were LDS, I would agree with you to some degree. They are not formed into the God of 
Israel on Earth.  But LDS teachings have them being formed into Gods and Goddesses of other 
places and then heavenly parents of their own spirit children. Unless they will share the 
same realm as Heavenly Father of Earth and populate only the worlds that he has created for 
their eventual exaltation and heavenly parentage.

Joseph Smith and the scriptures teach that God the Father is the God of all other gods, and that we are eternally subject to him.  Those who follow his plan and become like him (with God granting them his throne, his power, and authority) are representatives of the one God who is above all others, and rule with him over the worlds that he has created.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

In your response above you say that “eternal life” for a Christian begins from the moment of their faith in Christ, “it is forward-looking”.  But in your post on 11/05/2024, you said the following (and this is what started this line of questioning):

“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 according to you Latter-day Saints can’t say that God the Father is “the Eternal God” because he has (as you suppose) “not eternally existed as God”, but you can say you have “eternal life” in a forward-looking sense, even though you haven’t existed eternally with that life?   Can you see that you are using a double standard?  I can!

You are using the phase “Eternal God” in a way that is inconsistent with the rest of scripture.

Christians having faith in Christ to inherit eternal life is not the same thing as God being 
God from all eternity to all eternity or that these Christians will become Gods. 

It appears you want to have it both ways.  When scripture refers to Christians receiving “eternal life” it means it is “forward looking” since it begins from the moment of their faith in Christ, yet when scripture refers to the “eternal God” (using the same terminology) it means that God has always been God and never started out that way.  But you really can’t have it both ways. “Eternal God” means that he is God and he is eternal, just as “eternal life” means that the individual has life and that life is eternal, and neither imply that the state of being has been forever in the past.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

In LDS theology, it seems every being already has "eternal life" (they exist from all eternity 
to all eternity) in the sense they are uncreated (gnolum) beings but not Gods.

No.  “Eternal life” has a very specific meaning in scripture.

First of all, we need to go with the biblical definition of “life” which only comes through the joining of the spirit with the body in the physical realm.  God gave “life” to all the creatures that he created upon the earth 1(Genesis 1:30).  

And the opposite of “life” is “death”.  Death is defined in the Bible as the separation of the spirit from the body, as it says in James 2:26: “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” 

When people are resurrected from the dead and their bodies and spirits are reunited eternally, does that mean they have “eternal life”?  No, scripture also makes the distinction between “immortality” which refers to living forever in a body and “eternal life” which refers to living forever with God (having the kind of life that God has).  (See for example, Romans 2:7, 1 Corinthians 15:53-54, 2 Timothy 1:10).   “Eternal life” is thus a term that is reserved for those who live forever with God and have the same kind of “life” that he has.

Finally, spirits that have existed eternally have no concept of life or death apart from having a body.  So your suggestion that spirits already have “eternal life” is incorrect, as shown from what I explained above.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

How do you understand the Book of Mormon Introduction page saying, "And also to the convincing 
of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God"?

Jesus is eternal and Jesus is God.  What needs to be explained?  It is truth.

2 Nephi 26:12; “And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God".

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

You can say this only if you base your belief that Jesus has always existed as God on other revelations outside the Bible like we do (but you don’t).  So in other words, you believe that Jesus always existed as God even though the Bible doesn’t specifically teach that.

I would say you believe Jesus, Heavenly Father, the Holy Spirit have not always existed as 
God even though no LDS scripture specifically teaches otherwise.

It seems "from everlasting to everlasting you are God" [Psalm 90:2] is not a quality you 
would apply to the God you worship or the God you hope you'll become.

You say we believe a lot of different things, as you try to attribute a lot of beliefs to us that are not official doctrines of the church or teachings that we may or may not believe. 

And of course we believe Psalm 90:2 completely, and it is absolutely a quality that applies to all who become like God as you well know. 

Don’t you remember your post on 11/25/2022, posting as TheTanakas (while pretending to be a member of the church) and my response to that post on 11/27/2022 and my post on 12/24/2022 regarding Doctrine and Covenants 132:20?  I’m sure you remember that, it’s the same post where I first began presenting the evidence showing that you, telnetd, marineland, and TheTanakas are all the same person. 

As for Psalm 90:2, we just believe it in the same way the Hebrew words of the original text explain the verse, the same way as those who wrote the Psalm to begin with understood the phrase, but not in the way many modern traditions interpret it.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

The problem with your explanation above is that Matthew 28:18 says the power was “given” to Jesus by his God.  If Jesus simply laid aside his “all power” for a time, he wouldn’t need for it to be “given” back, he would just take it back again and nobody would need to “give” it to him.  So your explanation doesn’t make any sense related to what the Bible says on those points.

"… who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be 
grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness 
of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point 
of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him 
the name that is above every name".

Christ being highly exalted does not mean Heavenly Father made him God.

Christ has this power as God prior to the incarnation.  This is not true for the LDS Jesus 
prior to him being formed into a spirit child of heavenly parents.

You are mixing things up to create a straw man argument and avoid the real issues at hand.

Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus was God prior to the incarnation, the same as the Bible and Book of Mormon teaches.  In the beginning Jesus created all things under the direction of God the Father (Hebrews 1:1-2, Ephesians 3:9).  He had the power and authority of God the Father to do that.

But what you keep avoiding is the fact that Jesus was “given” that position by appointment from God the Father.  Matthew 28:18 says all power was “given” to Jesus by his Father.  You say he just laid aside his power for a time (which is true), but he couldn’t just take it back again, it had to be “given” back to him, which shows that it was appointed unto him.

The same is true of Philippians 2:8-9.  Jesus wouldn’t need to be “highly exalted” by his Father if it wasn’t an appointment given him by the Father, it would simply be what he is.  

And in John 17:5, 20-23, and 24, Jesus points out that the Father had “given” him “glory” in the beginning before the world was.  The Father “gave” him that glory, it’s not something he could simply take upon himself (or otherwise he would just go back to what he was all on his own).  Christ had the power and glory of God prior to the incarnation, not simply because of who he is, but because God the Father “gave” it to him.

So your quibbling about the meaning of the phrase “highly exalted” is just avoiding the real issue here, and what it really means doesn’t matter to the point, which is that it was something that the God and Father of Jesus Christ bestowed upon him instead of Jesus simply returning to be what he always has been (supposedly).  The same thing goes for my quote above about Matthew 28:18, since this shows that the power was bestowed upon Jesus by his God and Father.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Philippians 2:5-9 proves exactly what I was saying above.  The verses say Jesus laid aside the position he had before with his Father so that he could accomplish the work of the atonement, but ultimately it is the Father that exalted him and gave him a name above every other name.  He was given this by his God and Father, it’s not something that he had (or else the scripture you quoted is wrong).

"The Father exalted him" does not mean Jesus was formed into a God.

But THE FATHER had to exalt him (he didn't exalt himself, you miss the point). 

You keep saying this over and over as if you are trying to convince yourself.  I’m not sure you really believe that.

See my comments on this above.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

What type of glory *I’m* referring to?  We were talking about what kind of glory Jesus meant when he said that his God and Father had “given” him that glory “before the world was”, remember?  This is about what scripture says, not something I said.

What kind of “glory” was Jesus talking about in John 17:22, John 17:5, and John 17:24?  And why did Jesus not have that “glory” before his God and Father gave it to him “before the world was”?   And if Jesus is really eternally God, why did he need to receive this glory from his God and Father in the beginning?

I addressed this earlier with some commentary by theologian Matthew Henry. If that doesn't 
help you, I'll try to find something else.

Your reasoning continues to support your belief that neither the LDS Jesus nor Heavenly 
Father was God before their respective God gave them their glory.

You continue to misconstrue Latter-day Saint doctrine.  We don’t believe that anyone gave Heavenly Father his glory, he has always been the most advanced of all others.  But the Bible clearly teaches that God the Father “gave” glory to Jesus before the world began (John 17:5, 22, 24).

The main point here is that Jesus did not originate with that glory, it was glory given to Jesus before the world began.  Why would it need to be given to him in the beginning if he had that glory all along?

Furthermore, Jesus gives that same exact glory to his disciples who become “one” with him and his Father, in the same way Jesus is one with his Father.  God offers it to all who come unto him and become one with him and his Son.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

I find some instances of "receiving" and "giving" glory and "being" the glory of God. These 
do not indicate a person becomes a God, that God becomes something more than He is, or that 
God is in any way lacking in glory.

"When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, 
that the Son of God might be glorified thereby" (John 11:4).

Jesus does not become God by raising Lazarus from the dead.

Again, you are completely missing the point.  I am not arguing that Jesus didn’t have glory while on earth, or that him being “glorified” means he “became God” in that sense.  Our worship of God “glorifies” his name (Psalm 86:9), but of course that does not change who God is nor does it mean he didn’t have glory prior to that time.

The point about John 17:5, 22, and 24 is what I said about it above:  If Jesus was God and always God, why would someone else (God the Father in this case) need to “give” the glory to him?  And remember, John 17:5, 22, and 24 tell us that God the Father “gave” that glory to Jesus in the beginning “before the world was”, so this “glory” was “given” him prior to his incarnation.  Why didn’t Jesus simply just have the same glory as the Father in the beginning? 

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

What do *I* mean?  Me?  We weren’t talking about something I said.  We were talking about what Jesus means in Revelation 3:8-9, remember?  This is about what scripture says, not something I said.

What does Jesus mean here?

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;  I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.  Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”  (Revelation 3:7–9)

Why would Jesus make other humans come and worship at the feet of those who overcome?

Revelation 3:7-13 is a letter to the church of Philadelphia.  It is not to all the churches.

"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, 
but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that 
I have loved thee" (Revelation 3:8).

"Them of the synagogue of Satan" will come to worship (pay homage, obeisance) at the feet 
of those in the church of Philadelphia who overcome but the Christians of that church would 
not be worshipped as Gods. They were mortals.  

I see you are downplaying the meaning of “worship” to be “pay homage, obeisance”, but the Greek word translated as “worship” in Revelation 3:9 is proskuneo, and is the very same word used in verses referring to worship of God, such as Matthew 4:10 where Jesus says, "Thou shalt worship [proskuneo] the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."   There really is no difference.

Jesus is clearly causing some humans to worship other humans because of what they had attained.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

So you believe God is the God of Zeus and Hermes too.  Got it.  Anyone can be the God over things that don’t exist.  That’s not impressive at all.

God executed judgment over the Egyptian gods.  He is God above all the gods they worshipped 
as true gods.  They did not worship what they believed were false gods.

We see this inferred in Exodus 18:10-11 ("Jethro said, "Blessed be the LORD, who has 
delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians and out of the hand of Pharaoh and has 
delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. Now I know that the LORD is 
greater than all gods, because in this affair they dealt arrogantly with the people").

Jethro can be considered a polytheist. Even after acknowledging the supremacy of the God 
of Israel, he doesn't reject the existence of the gods of Egypt or them being false deities.

This is another rerun.  You already said this and I already answered it.

You believe that God says in scripture (in verses like Deuteronomy 10:17) that he’s the God over gods that other people believe are real but they don’t really exist, which is like saying God is the God of Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.  Because he is said to be ruling over fictional characters, we can rewrite that narrative into anything we want (it’s fiction).  Zeus and Hermes can have a God over them, and we can make up anything we want about them and their “God” since they are fictional.

But is this really how the God of the Bible wants us to understand his power and rule over others?  Is it all make believe?  Your view diminishes God to a myth, whereas the God of the Bible is the God over other real gods, and the Bible describes his holiness and his works as greater than these other gods (Exodus 15:11).  How could God compare his great and mighty works to those of fictional beings and keep a straight face as he does it?  It’s ludicrous. 

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

I believe that scripture means what it says, and God is really the “God of gods and Lord of lords”.  He is the God over gods that are truly gods and exist in reality, and the Lord over lords that are truly lords that exist in reality.   He is also said to be the “King of kings” in the same manner.

When you say "Heavenly Father is the God of gods", who are these "gods" and when did these 
beings become "gods"?

You don't really believe Heavenly Father is the God of all the Gods formed before him, do 
you?

Heavenly Father has created worlds without number (Moses 1:33) and others who are co-eternal with him have been also granted his power and authority from him.

And given that God the Father is more advanced than all others (Abraham 3:19) and rules over all others (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32), and given that God the Father is eternal, your second question is illogical.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

But as I said last time, that is vastly different than the song of Moses (a true prophet of God) saying, “Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?” (Exodus 15:11).  None of the other gods that really exist can compare to the one who is the God of all other gods.

What "real, true" gods do you believe this is a reference to?  Or are you referring to "false, 
pagan" gods?

Who is "like thee", "like God" is answered when you examine Doctrine and Covenants 76:95 ("And 
he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion").

Exactly equal to?  No.  

I think you answered your own question here.

The gods that really exist are those who are the same kind of being as God, but in addition to that they are given power and might and rule with him in his dominion as granted to them by the one God who is above all gods (God the Father).

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

But can any compare to him or be made (formed) like him?  Yes, according to D&C.

Can any be greater than the LDS Heavenly Father?  Presumably yes.  Christ's Grandfather (another 
God) or any of Heavenly Father's exalted Brothers or Sisters could also fit the bill.

I already addressed this misconception earlier in my post.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

The response that Pyreaux gave to this portion of your post explains the problem with your position quite adequately and also explains the ancient Israelite view of these divine beings.

The facts are that: (1) nowhere does the Bible teach that God appointed a council of Jewish elders to rule over foreign nations, (2) it makes no sense for human judges to be given the punishment to “die like men” (aren’t they already men and are going to “die like men”?), and (3) the human judges interpretation contradicts Psalm 89:5-7 which speaks of these gods in a heavenly council.

Who are the gods in Psalm 82:1?   Are they exalted beings of other worlds that Heavenly 
Father did not create?  If yes, how did they become gods?  If no, are they non-exalted beings 
like yourself?

Neither.  I explained that earlier.  I said (above) “The ‘gods’ of Psalm 82 are part of ancient Israel beliefs that God appointed ‘gods’ over the nations.  I don’t think there is any correlation of that to anything in Doctrine and Covenants 121:32 other than the general idea that the one God who is above all rules over all the ‘gods’”.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

You mentioned Psalm 89:5-7.

"And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O Lord: thy faithfulness also in the congregation 
of the saints. For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the 
mighty can be likened unto the Lord? God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, 
and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him". 

Are the saints of the assembly in Psalm 89:5-7 the same beings as the gods in Psalm 82:1?

Scholars of ancient Israel studies consider both Psalm 82 and Psalm 89 to be depictions of God’s divine council.  The “saints” in Psalm 89 are really the “holy ones” (in Hebrew).  This is how the ESV translates the passage, and the divine council language is clearly evident:

“Let the heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones!  For who in the skies can be compared to the LORD?  Who among the heavenly beings [sons of God] is like the LORD,  a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him?”

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Where do you get the idea that Satan and other angels of God were like Jesus?

• They existed before the Earth was created.
• They had agency, meaning they could make choices for themselves.
• They had knowledge of God's plan.  One chose to obey the Father's will, Satan rebelled.
• They existed as spirits.

Those are the ways that they are alike, but obviously there is more to it than that. 

Hebrews 2:17 says the following about Jesus (ESV translation):

“Therefore he [Jesus] had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”

So, in the incarnation Jesus became “like his brothers in every respect”.  But are all his brothers like him in every respect?

As for Jesus, he was God in the beginning and he was still God when he was made flesh and dwelt among us, so there are major differences between Jesus and the others that were with him.  

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

This is how Psalm 82 uses the word elohim (in four places):

Psalms 82:1–8:
1 Elohim standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the elohim.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
 4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are elohim; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O Elohim, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Are those the elohim you had in mind for your response above?

Judges and leaders can be referred to as "gods" in the sense of being authority figures 
wielding power to judge and administer God's laws among the people. Here's a bit more detail 
on how this concept was understood:

Authority and Representation: Judges and leaders were considered representatives of God's 
authority on earth. They administered justice and upheld the law, which in a way made them 
God's agents or representatives.

Just Rulership: They were expected to embody divine attributes like justice, mercy, and 
fairness. As judges, they were executing judgments that were meant to align with God's will.

Cultural Linguistics: The Hebrew word "Elohim" can mean "God" but can also refer to mighty 
ones or rulers depending on the context. This linguistic usage allowed for human judges to 
be called "gods" when they were acting in a judicial capacity, not implying divinity but 
rather authority.

But all of what you say above about judges is totally foreign to the Bible.  There is no such usage in the Bible.

In the Bible there is the concept of authority and representation, such as Jesus acting as the agent of the Father, being his representative and having his authority, in both the Old and New Testaments.  Or when Moses was acting as God’s representative to Pharoah.  

But both of these examples are the same for all those who become “gods”, as they serve under the authority of God the Father and act as representatives of the one God and Father who is above all others.  And whether it be Jesus being the representative of his Father, or Moses being the representative of the Father, or those who become gods being the representative of the Father, they are all given the power and authority of God and it is not merely to administer justice and uphold the law in the way that you try to explain it above.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

Shame on you for disapproving of Latter-day Saints placing an importance upon interpreting Joseph Smith and all the other revelations correctly.

You seem to be asserting the teaching of Joseph Smith ("this is the way Heavenly Father 
became God") as meaning God only becomes God in the sense that he becomes the Heavenly 
Father of us.

You seem to be asserting that Joseph Smith said the words, “this is the way Heavenly Father became God”, even after you have been corrected for making that claim. 

Remember, you were originally quoting that from the Vincent Poldrugovac book and I demonstrated to you that the quote does not come from Joseph Smith. Are you bringing this up again intentionally and just playing around and not taking this discussion seriously?  Is there any point in me continuing this conversation?  I won’t continue it if you keep on with this kind of nonsense.

This was also in the same thread where I presented the evidence that you (theplains), telnetd, TheTanakas (who was pretending on this message board to be a member of the church) and marineland (and now GoCeltics is added to the list) are all the same person and were deriving content from the "LDS Learning" [sic] Website.  I can’t believe you want me to keep calling attention to that evidence.

The posts where the evidence is presented can be found in this thread starting with my post on 11/16/2022 on top of page 35:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74208-the-uniqueness-of-the-lds-church/page/35/

Here's a quote from one of the posts in that thread showing how you misrepresented what you say above as coming from Joseph Smith:

On 11/21/2022 at 3:54 PM, InCognitus said:

You claimed (above and in your last post, and it was implied in your post here) that the entire quotation came from Joseph Smith, but it did not.  The blue portion came from the manual, and not Joseph Smith.    That's why it's a "fake quotation".   Compare what you posted above to the quote from the book by Vincent Poldrugovac (here or here), as shown on the left below, and compared to the manual image you posted:

Notice that the Poldrugovac book (on the left) makes it appear that this entire quotation came from Joseph Smith just like you did in your post.  Were you copying that from the Poldrugovac book, or from the Gospel Principles manual?  If from the Gospel Principles manual, why did you make it seem like it was once long quotation and claim it was something that Joseph Smith said?  

I’m seriously considering dropping this conversation with you completely because it seems you just want to recycle the same junk over and over again without any consideration to the arguments and evidence presented in the past against what you say.  

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

I’ll rephrase what you say above correctly:  Heavenly Father [of worlds without number] is the God and Father of all other gods of all other realms.

This is how Joseph Smith taught it:  “Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you”.  (History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844])

In other words, all the Gods “before us” (compared to our place and time right now) became “kings and priests to God”, the one God who is above all others and is the God of all other gods.

Yes. I have seen this.  It's a reference to all the LDS Gods who were formed before the LDS 
Heavenly Father became a God.

No, it’s exactly the opposite.

Again, this is evidence you aren’t taking this discussion seriously, as you don’t even appear to have read what it says nor are you engaging in what I said.

The quote is saying that all Gods “before us” became kings and priests “to God”.  All Gods are subject to the one God and Father of all who is above all.  How can they possibly be made kings and priests to God if they became Gods “before the LDS Heavenly Father became a God” as you claim?

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

On 1/25/2025 at 10:28 PM, InCognitus said:

What I said is correct.  The Bible makes it clear that God has a plan to exalt those who follow him, even with them receiving the same glory that Jesus was given from the father in the beginning, sitting with God in his throne the same way Jesus sits with his Father in his throne, and receiving power, authority and inheriting all things.  If that’s not becoming like God and Jesus Christ, then you’ll need to explain why those Bible teachings on those topics are not correct.

I've heard this.  The LDS Plan of Salvation teaches that gods can be formed (made)

CFR on where “The LDS Plan of Salvation” says that gods can be “formed”, using that word.

On 2/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, theplains said:

through 
progression. Though "gods" is a term you see more frequently in LDS literature, when it boils 
down to it, the term "God" doesn't seem to be a key distinction when considering exaltation.

"All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like 
him—a god" (1997 Gospel Principles).

You keep using the phrase "becoming like God".  I'm not sure why you don't use the more 
appropriate phrase "becoming a God".  It's really at the core of the LDS concept of exaltation.

You do believe you have the potential to become a God and Heavenly Father yourself, right?

Repeat.  See above.  Don’t you have anything better to say other than recycling your old material?  If not, why should I continue this conversation?

I'm adding this to my list, like 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, 11/05/2024, and now 02/14/2025!  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.  

We've discussed this before (see above in case you don't believe me!). 

If you are serious about this conversation, cut out the repeated nonsense.  Otherwise I'll just cut and paste my lists again and again and again.

[theplains]

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

As for those literal Israelites who are dispersed throughout the Gentile nations, how are they to know their lineage unless God declares it to them?

I believe all or most of the descendants of Isaac (the child of promise) know they are Israelites 
based on their records of family tree and/or traditions passed down from parent to children.

Why is it necessary for Latter-day Saints to know their specific lineage through a patriarchal 
blessing?  For instance, what significance is there for you if you are determined to be of the 
house of Dan versus Gad or Asher?

I read in the Religion 430-431 seminary manual that "the great majority of those who have come 
into the Church are Ephraimites. It is the exception to find one of any other tribe, unless it 
is of Manasseh" but I don't know if this is still applicable today.  Is it?
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

The baptismal fonts in Latter-day Saint temples are patterned after the Jerusalem temple for the same symbolism as it was used in the Jerusalem temple:  The twelve oxen represent the twelve tribes of Israel.  And our use of that same design has the added symbolism with respect to how the gathering of Israel is taking place right now in the latter-days:  With the three oxen looking toward the north, three looking toward the west, three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east, and so shall it be for the gathering from all parts of the earth.

You mentioned being patterned after the "same" symbolism. How is the symbolism of the brazen sea 
the same in the Old Testament as in LDS temples?
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

As for “secrecy” regarding sacred things, that’s plainly biblical and it “creeps” into the LDS temples because they are from God and it is a sacred place.

I can understand the temple still being a sacred place for the Christians before it was destroyed 
by the Romans, but what knowledge do you believe was secretly held by them about the temple when 
they went there?

I believe the secrecy surrounding LDS temples can be traced back to the early leaders of the LDS 
Church, who were involved with Freemasonry and its secret signs and symbols.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Just because New Testament Christianity had practices and ordinances outside of the temple it doesn’t mean they were “replacing traditional temple practices”.  

In Old Testament times there were ordinances and practices that were symbolically comparable to some of the New Testament Christian ordinances and practices (circumcision, observance of the Passover, to name two), and there was no understanding that this was “replacing traditional temple practices” at that time.

From what I know, these are the ordinances performed by the LDS in their temples: Baptism for the 
Dead, Confirmations for the Dead, Endowment, Sealing, Initiatory Ordinances.

I don't see temple ordinances that New Testament Christian performed inside or outside the temple, 
comparable to Old Testament temple practices, that Gentile and Israelite Christians were still 
required to perform.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

And the new perspective on covenant-making in New Testament times included performing ordinances for the dead, since Jesus opened the way for the gospel to be preached to those in spirit prison.

A former member of the First Presidency taught Jesus visited the wicked spirits in spirit prison 
and preached the gospel to them.

"The spirits of the damned—those who have committed abominable crimes—will have this doctrine 
preached to them, and they will be kept in torment until they repent of their sins. The labors 
of the men who have received the Priesthood in this life will be continued in the life to come, 
in this glorious work of carrying the glad tidings of salvation to those who sit in darkness 
because of their sins—who may be in the condition of the snvediluvians, whom the Lord consigatd 
to prison after destroying them with a flood because they rejected the testimony of Noah and 
those associated with him.  The Lord had promised His servants, however, that these people should 
be visited after they had atoned to some extent for their violation of His laws; and this was the 
glorious mission of our Lord and Savior Jesus while His body lay in the sepulchre.  He went into 
the spirit world and visited these spirits in prison, unlocked the doors of their prisons and 
started again the work of preaching salvation to them to see whether, after having endured the 
wrath of God from the time when they were overwhelmed with the flood until then, they would 
receive the Gospel of salvation and repent of their sins. That is the labor that we have upon us 
as a people, both here and hereafter". (Millennial Star. 1899-02-23: Volume 61, Issue 8, pages 
115-116)

https://ia600403.us.archive.org/13/items/per_utah-and-the-mormons_the-latter-day-saints-millennial-star_1899-02-23_61_8/per_utah-and-the-mormons_the-latter-day-saints-millennial-star_1899-02-23_61_8.pdf

This was later corrected in 1918 by Joseph F Smith (D&C 138:20,29).

I bring up another two passages in the Doctrine and Covenants.

D&C 138:14 says Jesus visited those in peace (who died with a testimony of him in mortality) while 
D&C 76:74-75 says Jesus also visited those in misery (who did not have a testimony of him in 
mortality).
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

But both the Book of Mormon and the New Testament (for those who are made “pillars” in the temple of God, up through the millennial reign of Christ until the time when temple work is complete and New Jerusalem descends out of heaven) show that temples are important, and the fact that neither of these books discuss the ordinances being performed in those temples should cause you to pause and think about the problem with your argument.  They had temples and considered them important enough to mention, but they didn’t really do anything in those temples?  Really?

The Bible mentions many things that happened in the temple both in the Old Testament and New 
Testament times.  I find a few examples of only teachings but no ordinances (not even a baptism) 
performed in or at Nephite temples (Jacob chapters 2-3 - sermons delivered by Jacob; Mosiah 
chapters 2-5 – King Benjamin delivers his address).

Ether's record of the Jaredites doesn't even mention the temple, but it is meticulous in counting 
down the destruction of the Jaredites all the way down to the last man standing (chapters 13 through 
15).
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Your suggestion that this must be a “heavenly temple because it's connected with the New Jerusalem 
descending from heaven” doesn’t work, because New Jerusalem doesn’t have a temple in it as it is noted later on.  It simply means that those who participate in God’s temple will have citizenship in New Jerusalem.

I didn't say the biblical New Jerusalem has a temple in it, only that it is mentioned in the same 
breath where the city is mentioned as coming down from heaven. So I associate the temple of 
Revelation with the temple which remains in heaven (see Revelation 11:19 – "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").

On the other hand, the LDS city of New Jerusalem, supposedly to be built in Jackson County before 
the Second Coming, will have a temple in it.  Maybe even the city of Enoch, which comes down from 
heaven to Jackson County (Moses 7:62-63; Doctrine and Covenants 57:1-3), will have one or more 
temples in it.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

If the temple of Revelation 11:1-2 is in heaven, why would it make sense for John to need to “measure” those that worship therein?

There is a temple in Jerusalem and the temple in heaven (Revelation 11:19).
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

There is a temple of God in heaven to be sure.  But not every mention of the temple should be assumed to be the temple that is in heaven.  The fact that some passages specifically refer to the temple which is in heaven compared to the temple in some non-specified place is all the more reason to recognize that there is a different temple in mind in those cases.

There are no Nephite temples or temples constructed by the descendants of Ephraim or Manasseh 
mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

We already know the specified place of the earthly temple – Jerusalem.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

But CLEARLY the temple of God is important enough in New Testament Christian practice that those who “overcome” become pillars in that temple, and have a permanent place therein.  The temple of God is highly important to New Testament Christianity.

New Testament Christians never build a physical temple after the one in Jerusalem is destroyed. 
They gathered in homes or other meeting places like synagogues for worship. The concept of temple 
worship in early Christianity was transformed, focusing on Jesus Christ as the ultimate High 
Priest and His atoning sacrifice.

The first temple in LDS history is the Kirtland Temple, dedicated on March 27, 1836.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

“1 Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.  3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.  4 For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;  5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.  6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;  7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.  8 The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.”

When do you think that was fulfilled or will be fulfilled?

I'm not exactly sure when this will be fulfilled, if it's not already. I have a hard time 
comprehending that animal sacrifices will start up again.

As for location:

"Even them I will bring to My holy mountain, And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their 
burnt offerings and their sacrifices Will be accepted on My altar; For My house shall be called 
a house of prayer for all nations".

This refers to the earthly temple in Jerusalem, not to Salt Lake City, Independence, Missouri, 
or any other location.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Yes, but having the glory of the Lord in that city isn’t a sufficient reason for John to take special notice and say “[a]nd I saw no temple therein”, unless under normal circumstances he would expect to see a temple therein.   Obviously temples were expected in John’s view of the future of Christianity, and it was therefore noteworthy to point out the lack of a temple in New Jerusalem.

John does not see temples in Utah and Missouri in his vision.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

3 Nephi 16:1-3 says nothing about Jesus visiting the scattered tribes around the world before he visited the Nephites as you say above.  Those verses refer to future visits and specifically say that Jesus has not visited them yet:

“For they of whom I speak are they who have not as yet heard my voice; neither have I at any time manifested myself unto them.  But I have received a commandment of the Father that I shall go unto them, and that they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered among my sheep, that there may be one fold and one shepherd; therefore I go to show myself unto them.”  (3 Nephi 16:2–3)

Here's how I interpret those verses.  There are two parts: the past (after the resurrection but 
before the visit to the Nephites) and the future (after the visit to the Nephites).

Verse 1 depicts other visits to scattered tribes before the supposed visit to the Nephites – the 
past.  Verses 2-3 depict future visits – after the Nephites.

"And verily, verily, I say unto you that I have other sheep which are not of this land, neither 
of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to 
minister".

In verse 1, Jesus supposedly speaking to the Nephites, indicates other sheep (not in the land the 
Nephites were, not in parts of the land around the Nephites, nor in the land of Jerusalem) where 
Jesus has been [past tense] to minister.

This is the past.

Here's another example where I swap out the word "whither" to make my reasoning clearer.  Maybe 
it might help you understand how I see it.

Original phrase:  "I have sheep in other parts of the world, not here or in the land of Israel, 
about whither I have been to feed".

Rephrased: " I have sheep in other parts of the world, not here or in the land of Israel, where 
I have been to feed".

Have I already been [past tense] in areas not here or in the land of Israel to feed my sheep?  Yes.

3 Nephi 8:5 sets the time of Christ's death around the beginning of the thirty-fourth year with 
the description of storms and destruction on the fourth day of the first month.

"And it came to pass in the thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the fourth day of the 
month, there arose a great storm, such an one as never had been known in all the land".

3 Nephi 10:18 provides another key timeline reference:

"And it came to pass that in the ending of the thirty and fourth year, behold, I will show unto 
you that the people of Nephi who were spared, and also those who had been called Lamanites, who 
had been spared, did have great favors shown unto them, and great blessings poured out upon their 
heads, insomuch that soon after the ascension of Christ into heaven he did truly manifest himself 
unto them".

The gap between these timeline markers hints at a delay of nearly a year between the resurrection 
and Christ's appearance to the Nephites.

When you consider that 11-month gap, this will make sense for 3 Nephi 16:1 to show the Book of 
Mormon indicating Jesus visited other scattered tribes before he appeared to the Nephites.

3 Nephi 20:25-26 says, "And behold, ye are the children of the prophets; and ye are of the house 
of Israel; and ye are of the covenant which the Father made with your fathers, saying unto Abraham: 
And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. The Father having raised me up 
unto you first, and sent me to bless you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities; 
and this because ye are the children of the covenant".

Jesus was not raised up unto the Nephites first.  Christ was raised up first to those in the land 
of Israel.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe God had no further dealings with the scattered tribes of Israel after they were scattered?  Do you believe they no longer had prophets of God?  Do you believe God did not give them any scripture?  Do you believe Jesus simply ignored them in his ministry to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”?

I don't believe the Book of Mormon indicating Jesus personally visited other scattered tribes 
around the world.

The "lost sheep of the house of Israel" would be "found" by the spreading of gospel when Christ 
gave the Great Commission and the missionaries were sent forward.

In LDS theology, we have a premise that Christ visited maybe 5,10,15, 20 (more?) scattered 
Israelites around the world and we have maybe 5,10,15,20 (more?) sets of Christian scriptures 
recording the establishment of a church, the calling of disciples, prophets, etc, and missionary 
work.

Maybe it is as you say – "other records will come forth in due time".
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Wait a minute.  Given that Romans 9:7-9 and Galatians 4:28-31 state those who come to Christ become the seed of Abraham and are counted as “the children of the promise”, where do you make a distinction (biblically speaking) in what those promises entail?  Show from scripture where Abraham’s “seed” means only the literal seed for receiving the land promises.

Abraham's seed is literal seed (through the seed of Isaac) plus those Gentiles and Israelites who 
come to faith in Christ.  I believe that while both these groups inherit the blessing of salvation, 
the land covenant is for the literal seed only, based on Old Testament writings. A few scriptures 
come to mind (Ezekiel 36:36; 37:25-28, Amos 9:11-15, and Psalm 147:2).
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Your argument above assumes that the population in general had complete access to the records of Ether in the same way as people today have access to the Bible.  (Did the Nephites have printing presses?)  Furthermore, it doesn’t account for the possibly 300 years or so of direct contact with the people who resided in the land prior to their great battle.

Your key word is "possibly".  

Also, there is no record of the Nephites meeting a population of Jaredites or any other Gentiles 
living near them or around them as they are said to have expanded further northward (southward too?) 
with their ship-building enterprises.

The Jaredites are described as being the greatest civilization that will ever be raised up by God 
on Earth, constructing numerous cities and structures.  They were very industrious as they mined 
several ores (Ether 1:43; 7:9; 10:5-12, 23-25).  In their journeys, the Nephites never find living 
Jaredites, except for one.  Instead, they find their bones.

You also make the assumption that they (the population in general) did not have complete access to 
the records of Ether.  But I am just making an interpretation on what Moroni (or Ether) writes. It 
is doubtful the population as a whole even knew or read what was on those gold or brass plates.  
So, just focus more on what the writer writes instead of what you believe the general population 
knew or didn't know.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Remember, the Lord said he would “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 11:12).

The "outcasts of Israel" in Isaiah 11:12 refer to actual Israelites, not Latter-day Saints who, 
despite receiving a patriarchal blessing identifying them with a specific lineage of Jacob, are 
not literal descendants.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Yes, the Great Apostasy occurs in the future to the time of Jesus and the apostles, but not in the future to us.  It has already taken place.

The great apostasy (the events of 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12, Revelation 13:4-18, and Revelation 19:19-21) 
is future.

Since you believe they have already taken place, then clearly identify the key markers for those 
mentioned passages.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Daniel 2:44, “And in the days of these kings [What kings?  The kingdoms of the toes and feet that were part iron and part clay] shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.”

There are two very major problems with your use of this verse as a proof text for your claim:

First:   The “days of these kings” come in the latter days, long after:

• The head of Gold (Babylon)
• The chest and arms of silver (the Mede-Persian monarchy)
• The brazen belly and thighs (the Greco-Macedonian empire)
• The legs of iron (Rome – that kingdom was divided into the Western and Eastern empires beginning in 286 CE)
• Finally, the kingdoms of the feet and toes mixed of iron and clay (the modern kingdoms and states of the world that came about after the fall of Rome, having remnants of Roman influence [represented by the iron] among them). 

The kingdom that the God of heaven sets up that shall “never be destroyed” is in the days of these modern kingdoms (the feet and toes mixed of iron and clay) that came about after the fall or Rome (not at the time of Jesus).  So the timing of the setting up of the “kingdom, which shall never be destroyed” is way off and doesn’t fit your assertion.

Joseph Smith taught that the ten toes is the government of the United States.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Remember, context is important. 

1 Corinthians 15:20–25:

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

This is talking about the future kingdom of God that is established in preparation for the millennial reign of Christ that comes after the first resurrection from the dead.

Add the future city and temple that is prophesied to be built in Missouri before the Second Coming.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

“Whenever God's work on earth intensifies, so does the opposition against it.  The exact same situation is described in Revelation chapter 12, where "the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born" (v 4), and "when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child." (v 13)  And "the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood." (v 15).  And "the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (v 17)”

In response to the attacks upon the church by Satan, the woman (the church) “fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, the they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days” (v 6), and the woman was “given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and a half time, from the face of the serpent” (v 14). 

So when the “woman” (the church) fled into the wilderness, it depicted the time that the church was removed from among men on the earth and its presence on the earth was essentially “destroyed”.

And yes, the restored church in the latter days is the same church brought back to be among men on the earth again, as the Lord said it is the “coming forth of my church out of the wilderness” (Doctrine and Covenants 5:14, 33:5).

The Joseph Smith translation of Revelation 12:5 says, "And the woman fled into the wilderness, 
where she had a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and 
threescore years".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/jst/jst-rev/12.5?lang=eng#p5

When do you believe this period of 1,260 years started?

We discussed the measuring of the temple. Would you explain the time frame and setting for 
Revelation 11:2? ("But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; 
for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and 
two months").
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Does that mean the church was in an “’some’ institutional apostasy caused by false teachings, which indirectly lead to ‘some’ individual apostasy when these false teachings [were] taught and believed” during the time when Paul was teaching this false belief as you said in your last post?  (But that would not be the correct meaning of the word apostasy, of course).

In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, Paul speaks about those who are alive and remain at the coming of the 
Lord. Some have interpreted this as Paul believing that he might be among those who are alive at 
Christ's return. However, it's important to understand that Paul's writings often emphasize readiness 
for the Second Coming without providing a specific timeline. 

I already addressed the great apostasy earlier.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

I believe Jesus was the same being he has always been before he became a member of the Godhead and helped God the Father (the God of all other Gods) carry out his plan of salvation on our behalf.

That version of Jesus has not always been God, so he was not always a member of the Godhead.  The 
LDS Jesus, when he supposedly was an eternal, uncreated intelligence (before he was formed into 
a spirit child of a heavenly mother like all intelligences who would later become his spirit 
brothers and sisters), was not a human being procreated in the image of his Father. He would
become a God afterwards.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

I believe Isaiah 44:6 in the same way as this rhetoric was used in scripture to indicate that no other Gods compare to the one God who is above all others.

All future worthy LDS males who hope to become Gods may not compare EQUALLY in ALL things like 
Heavenly Father but they will compare nonetheless ("They will have everything that our Heavenly 
Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge").  No two Gods in LDS 
theology compare exactly the same.  Not even twins compare exactly in all details. Not even clones.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

As to your other question, Abraham 3:22-25 is as close as we have that addresses it:

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

Organized from what into what?  From eternal uncreated intelligences into spirit children or 
something else?
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Why do you suppose that the majority of Christians prior to the invention of the doctrine of creation out of nothing and prior to the first council of Nicaea (when Constantine added the word “homoousious” to the creed) believed and widely taught that God is the God over other gods, and that men become gods?

The term was strongly promoted by Athanasius, a leading figure in the early Church and later bishop 
of Alexandria, although the word itself was not initially a part of the original Nicene Creed. It 
was introduced during the council to clarify that Jesus Christ is of the same substance (Greek: 
"homoousios") as God the Father, rejecting the idea that Christ was a created being or of a different 
substance (as suggested by Arius and his followers).

The decision to include "homoousios" was made after much debate, with Emperor Constantine playing 
a role in urging consensus among the bishops. The term became a central part of the Nicene Creed 
to define orthodox Christian belief against Arianism.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

We are always subject to the one God and Father who is above all others.

From how I understand LDS theology and eternal increase, the spirit children of future LDS males 
who are formed into Gods will be subject to their respective God.  For example, you are not subject 
to any Gods above Heavenly Father.  You do not worship your Grandfather God or any related or 
unrelated Gods alongside him.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Now doesn’t that sound exactly like what the early Christian Father Origen taught in the quote I provided above?

How do you explain that?

Regarding my comment about the LDS seminary manual ("By obedience and devotion to the truth he 
[Jesus] attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, 
while yet in his pre-existent state" (Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, 
chapter 4)"

I don't understand the question. Please clarify.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

God the Father is the God of those on our earth and of worlds without number.  He is the God of all other gods, and thus more advanced than any other.  And Joseph Smith taught that all the Gods “before” us are made kings and priests onto him, the one God who is above all.  So your question doesn’t fit.

How was Heavenly Father (of our Earth) made a king and priest unto his Father (aka, the Grandfather 
of Jesus)?
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

I’m not going to go down the speculation rabbit hole with you.  If you can show me where any of the things you describe above are revealed in scripture (Latter-day Saint scripture or otherwise), then we can discuss it.

The existence of Heavenly Mother is a doctrine in LDS theology. That's why I asked you who you 
believe atoned for her sins.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

But back to my point, the earliest Christians (the ones that were the closest to the time of Jesus and the apostles and prior to the first council of Nicaea when the “homoousious” Father and Son was invented) clearly taught that men become Gods and achieving Godhood.  Why do you suppose that was the case?

The concept of men becoming gods, often referred to as theosis or divinization, can be found in 
early Christian theology. Church Fathers like Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Athanasius 
discussed this idea. For example, Athanasius famously said, "God became man so that man might 
become God".

I don't believe men becoming Gods and achieving Godhood is biblical so I don't believe those 
earliest Christians.   It's not even in the Book of Mormon, which is said to contain the fulness 
of the gospel.

I only find mention of men and women being formed into "gods" in Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-21 
and 76:52-58. They were washed and cleansed of their sins before becoming (being formed into) gods.

Maybe "gods" = "Gods" is your scriptural reference?
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

God the Father (the God above all gods) has many attributes.  Among them I would list the following:

1. He is an eternal being (he has always existed).
2. He has all power
3. He has all glory
4. He is all knowing
5. He is perfect
6. He rules over all other beings

But none of us have all power, all glory, are all knowing, are perfect, nor do we rule over all other beings.

But through the atonement of his Son Jesus Christ, God the Father provides a way for us to receive all those other attributes (except that in point #6 we will still be in subjection to the one God who is above all other gods, the same way Jesus is subject to him).

I addressed some of this earlier.

From what I understand of LDS theology, all males who hope to become Gods will possess attributes 
1-6.  Regarding #6, they will rule over all the spirit children they procreate through eternal 
increase.  Most likely, they will even create their own worlds which they will populate with their 
children.

These subsequent spirit children will be subject to their own respective God.  For example, the 
spirit brothers of Heavenly Father who became Gods will each have their own spirit children.  The 
spirit children of Father X (millions or billions) are not subject to Father X-1. The spirit 
children of Father X-2 are not subject to Father X-3, etc, etc.  To bring this meaning into context 
of those on our Earth, the spirit children of Heavenly Father (of our Earth) are not subject to 
Jesus' Grandfather God.

Those on Earth only worship their own God. They don't worship any male Gods that are inside or 
outside of their immediate family.  Spirit children of each God will only worship their own Father 
God.

The aspiration to becoming a God led to the downfall of Eve when she was tempted by Satan.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

What is “the nature of angels”, exactly?  Please provide a definition from scripture.

We see them as human representatives (see the letter to the seven churches for example)
and beings created by Christ (Colossians 1:16).  But the exact nature of the later is not 
clearly identified. I'll say they may have some characteristics of seraphim and cherubim.  
One of these types of creatures has wings.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Can you imagine how Eve might have turned out if God had allowed Adam to be awake during Eve’s creation and Adam had a say on what Eve should be like?  That would be a disaster.

Try that explanation on your fellow elders and let me know how they react and then get back 
to me.  Did any of them not smile?
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Paul intentionally used the Greek word génos when speaking to his pagan audience when he taught them that we are in fact the “offspring of God”.  Why would Paul use a term that his Greek audience would understand in the way you described it if Paul did not intend for it to be understood that way?

I believe he was using their foundational knowledge to correct their perspective.

If you think his pagan audience believed in a heavenly mother (or mothers), could you please 
provide evidence?
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

What’s your point?  There is nothing in Romans 8:14-17 that contradicts or excludes what was said by Joseph Smith.  The qualities listed in Romans 8:14-17 are the same that lead to what Joseph Smith is talking about in the quote you posted, and all of it is biblical:

• They inherit the same power: “[H]e that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.” (Revelation 2:26–27)
• They inherit the same glory: “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one” (John 17:22).
• They inherit the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” (Revelation 3:21).
• They refer to God as their Father: “He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” (Revelation 21:7)

So what’s the issue here?

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not 
received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, 
whereby we cry, Abba, Father.  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we 
are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with 
Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together".

The heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ all have these qualities:
    • They are led by the Spirit of God.
    • They are the sons of God.
    • They are adopted.
    • They refer to God as Abba Father.

But Joseph Smith taught that these "heirs" are exalted beings (the Gods). 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-18?lang=eng

You cannot pick and choose what qualities to keep and which to discard when speaking of the heirs.

So, all those who are not exalted are not led by the Spirit of God, are not the sons of God, are 
not adopted, and are not allowed to refer to God as Abba Father.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

But you are going beyond scripture.  Scripture says Jesus was the “firstbegotten”.  You also add (going beyond scripture) that he was “not made”, and I agree with that (he is eternal).  But then you go further beyond scripture and claim he was “not formed, not organized.. into a spirit child of heavenly parents”, but where does scripture say that?  (It doesn’t).

I understand what you mean when you say the LDS Jesus is eternal.  He is an eternal (gnolum) 
intelligence, like Abraham, who was formed into a spirit child of heavenly parents.  He, like 
Abraham, is an eternal being, but he was not eternally God before supposedly being born to his 
Mother.

You never did explain what or who you believe Jesus is before he is formed/organized into her 
first spirit child.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Yes, God is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting and the same unchangeable God, and those teachings are in agreement with the Bible.  And Jesus is from all eternity to all eternity too.  We believe those things 100%.  What’s your point?

The LDS Jesus is not eternally God in the same sense that he is an eternal being. You are 
supposedly an eternal being too, but you are not an eternal god.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

#1 – see the discussion about how the Greeks understood Paul’s teaching that we are all the génos (offspring) of God (as you explained it), earlier in this thread.

#2, #3, and #4, already discussed in prior posts with you (many times over).

#5, Which lesson manual teaches that one?

Regarding #5, the Holy Spirit being a brother of Jesus,

Here are several sources:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Holy Ghost is a spirit man, a 
spirit son of God the Father" (Jesus Christ and his gospel : selections from the Encyclopedia of 
Mormonism).

https://eom.byu.edu/index.php?title=Holy_Ghost
https://archive.org/details/jesuschristhisgo0000unse/page/230/mode/2up?q="Holy+Ghost+is+a+spirit+man"

"The Holy Ghost is a man; he is one of the sons of our Father and our God; and he is that man 
that stood next to Jesus Christ, (President Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 5:179).

https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/pdf/JoD05/JoD05.pdf
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

How you believe that I don’t know, since scripture never says such a thing.

Regarding the creation of Lucifer by Jesus: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn 
of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, 
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all 
things were created by him, and for him" (Colossians 1:15-16).
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-begotten-and-not-made

Quoting the article:

Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God, just as what man creates is not man.

Let's proceed with C.S. Lewis applying to this LDS theology.

Are you begotten of a heavenly mother, making you a God?
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Compare what you said above to the following quote from Hebrews 13:8:

“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.”

The Biblical Jesus:  Originally the “firstbegotten” of the Father (Hebrews 1:6), he was “made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), he “grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him” (Luke 2:40), and he “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” (Luke 2:52).  And he “learned obedience” and was “made perfect”, and “became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Hebrews 5:8-9), and was “highly exalted” by his Father and “given” a name above every other name (Philippians 2:9).  And now he sits at the right hand of the Father, sitting with his Father in his throne (Revelation 3:21). 

Can you explain the difference between what you said above compared to what scripture says of Jesus?

Christ is both man and God.  His "God" portion does not lack in power or knowledge. "For in him 
dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9).
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

I have explained to you previously that God the Father has always been the most advanced being of all and the God over all other Gods

Do you believe God the Father (of our Earth) is more advanced than his Father God or all his 
other spirit brothers and sisters who became Gods in their respective realms?
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Of course not.  An individual that is the same kind of being as God can’t be “formed” into a “god”, they follow God’s plan and learn to be “one” with him and then God trusts them to be given the same power and authority that he has.  God gives them that power and authority, and they represent him.

So exaltation is not really about become a God but instead becoming "one with God"?

That would mean Heavenly Father was not always a God because he was not "one with his God" before 
being born to his heavenly parents (Christ's Grandfather and Grandmother God).
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Thus, God is the God over all other gods that have followed his plan to become like him.

Exaltation = becoming like him = becoming a God, right?  

Or does becoming a God mean only becoming a God after you become a Heavenly Parent?
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

“Eternal God” means that he is God and he is eternal

What do you refer to him (Heavenly Father of our Earth) as when he is eternal but not yet a spirit 
child of his heavenly parents (aka, Christ's Grandfather and Grandmother God)?
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Finally, spirits that have existed eternally have no concept of life or death apart from having a body.  So your suggestion that spirits already have “eternal life” is incorrect, as shown from what I explained above.

Don't spirits (spirit children) have a spirit body in the form of a human?  

Prior to supposedly being born to heavenly parents, did they also have a human form when they were 
only existing as intelligences?
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Jesus is eternal and Jesus is God.  What needs to be explained?  It is truth.

Do you believe Jesus is both eternal AND God before supposedly being born to heavenly parents?
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

You continue to misconstrue Latter-day Saint doctrine.  We don’t believe that anyone gave Heavenly Father his glory, he has always been the most advanced of all others.

Is Heavenly Father more advanced than his Father (Christ's Grandfather) and all his other spirit 
brothers who supposedly became Gods too?
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

But the Bible clearly teaches that God the Father “gave” glory to Jesus before the world began (John 17:5, 22, 24).

The main point here is that Jesus did not originate with that glory, it was glory given to Jesus before the world began.  Why would it need to be given to him in the beginning if he had that glory all along?

Furthermore, Jesus gives that same exact glory to his disciples who become “one” with him and his Father, in the same way Jesus is one with his Father.  God offers it to all who come unto him and become one with him and his Son.

Does this mean you believe God the Father giving glory to Jesus and Jesus giving the same exact 
glory to his disciples (who become "one" with him and his Father) mean Jesus became a God and all 
these disciples will become (will be formed into) Gods?
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

The point about John 17:5, 22, and 24 is what I said about it above:  If Jesus was God and always God, why would someone else (God the Father in this case) need to “give” the glory to him?

I apply the same logic to the LDS Heavenly Father.  If he was always God, then his Father (Christ's 
Grandfather) would not need to give him glory. And who gave Heavenly Mother her glory?

I have not found any LDS teaching indicating that God the Father was also a God- incarnate man on 
the world he grew up on.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

I see you are downplaying the meaning of “worship” to be “pay homage, obeisance”, but the Greek word translated as “worship” in Revelation 3:9 is proskuneo, and is the very same word used in verses referring to worship of God, such as Matthew 4:10 where Jesus says, "Thou shalt worship [proskuneo] the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."   There really is no difference.

Jesus is clearly causing some humans to worship other humans because of what they had attained.

The verse says they come to worship before their feet.  This does not mean they worship their feet 
nor do they worship the members of the church of Philadelphia (who were mortals at the time).

But since that is what you believe, let's go down that path.

Why would those belonging to the synagogue of Satan worship the female members of the church of 
Philadelphia?

Why wouldn't the members of the synagogue of Satan also worship all the members of all the other 
six churches?

Would the members of the synagogue of Satan  only worship one person in the church of Philadelphia 
or would they become polytheists by worshipping many Gods?
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Heavenly Father has created worlds without number (Moses 1:33) and others who are co-eternal with him have been also granted his power and authority from him.

Do you believe all the exalted brother-Gods of Heavenly Father also created worlds without number 
after they were granted this power and authority from their Father God (aka, Christ's Grandfather)?
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

You seem to be asserting that Joseph Smith said the words, “this is the way Heavenly Father became God”, even after you have been corrected for making that claim.

I assumed the quote from the 1997 Gospel Principles ("This is the way our Heavenly Father became 
God" immediately after the paragraph "When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, 
and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top") was voiced by Joseph Smith – which you 
clarified below and said it should not be attributed to Joseph Smith.  I understand your view.

But nevertheless, that statement found its way into LDS theology.

There is nothing I can see in scripture about Heavenly Father becoming God only after he becomes 
a Heavenly Father by having spirit children.  I think you said several times that Heavenly Father 
becoming God is only in the sense that he became our Parent.

If you have a scripture which shows how a man and woman became Gods before they became Parents, 
then let me know.  

I've seen this document where it states the doctrine of Heavenly Mother, but it doesn't indicate 
how she became a God.

The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is a cherished and distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints.

While there is no record of a formal revelation to Joseph Smith on this doctrine, some early 
Latter-day Saint women recalled that he personally taught them about a Mother in Heaven. The 
earliest published references to the doctrine appeared shortly after Joseph Smith's death in 
1844, in documents written by his close associates.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

  The quote is saying that all Gods “before us” became kings and priests “to God”.  All Gods are subject to the one God and Father of all who is above all.  How can they possibly be made kings and priests to God if they became Gods “before the LDS Heavenly Father became a God” as you claim?

Revelation 1:6 ("And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and 
dominion for ever and ever. Amen") is connected to Revelation 20:6 ("Blessed and holy is he that 
hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be 
priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years").  

Those in the second resurrection are harmed by the second death.

I don't believe those in Revelation 1:6 (the children of Heavenly Father of Earth in the first 
resurrection) are Gods.
 

On 3/4/2025 at 12:23 AM, InCognitus said:

CFR on where “The LDS Plan of Salvation” says that gods can be “formed”, using that word.

Instead of focusing on or looking for a very specific word, let’s focus on semantics.
 
The teaching that man or woman can become ("they shall be") a god (a God) is synonymous with gods 
(Gods) being formed.

Doctrine and Covenants 76 and Doctrine and Covenants 132 include references to becoming (being 
formed into) gods (Gods) and having eternal increase.

One particular phrase repeated twice - "then shall they be gods"; which is really "Gods" (132:19-20).

The teaching is also found in a seminary manual (Doctrine and Covenants Instructor's Guide: 
Religion 324–325)

Exalted beings, who are the church of the Firstborn, shall receive all things from the Father.
        1. They shall have celestial bodies.
        2. They shall overcome all things and be perfected.
        3. They shall dwell with God the Father and Christ forever.
        4. They shall be gods.

They "shall be gods" = they "shall become gods" = they "shall be formed into gods".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-instructors-guide-religion-324-325/the-vision-part-2-lesson-29-section-76-50-70-92-96-113-19?lang=eng#p16

Then we have this doctrine, either originating with Lorenzo Snow or Joseph Smith.

In the spring of 1840, Lorenzo Snow was in Nauvoo, Illinois, preparing to leave for a mission 
in England. He visited the home of his friend Henry G. Sherwood, and he asked Brother Sherwood 
to explain a passage of scripture. “While attentively listening to his explanation,” President 
Snow later recalled, “the Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my understanding 
were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway 
of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown 
me. . . .

"As man now is, God once was:
"As God now is, man may be."

Feeling that he had received "a sacred communication" that he should guard carefully, Lorenzo 
Snow did not teach the doctrine publicly until he knew that the Prophet Joseph Smith had taught 
it.  Once he knew the doctrine was public knowledge, he testified of it frequently.

In addition to making this truth a theme for many of his sermons, he adopted it as the theme for his life.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/36787_eng.pdf

 

Let me put a little more meat on the couplet to simplify it.

"As man now is [man is not a God now], God once was [that being was once not a God]:
"As God now is [that being is now a God], man may be [man may become/may be formed into a God]".

Those who become Gods are formally known as the "Church of the Firstborn" in D&C 76.

[InCognitus]

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

I believe all or most of the descendants of Isaac (the child of promise) know they are Israelites 
based on their records of family tree and/or traditions passed down from parent to children.

Can you demonstrate this for people who are of the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Manasseh, and Ephraim?  Show me large groups of people who can actually trace their family tree back to one of these tribes. 

And you know how tradition works (look at all the things that modern Christians believe based on tradition, like the belief there is a “nature of angels” for example).  I know there are groups of people who claim to be of these tribes, but can they actually trace their ancestry based on their family tree?

Don’t you think it is better if the Lord just reveals it to them?

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

Why is it necessary for Latter-day Saints to know their specific lineage through a patriarchal 
blessing?  For instance, what significance is there for you if you are determined to be of the 
house of Dan versus Gad or Asher?

Reread this thread.  Start at the beginning.  God has set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people.  He’s doing it now.  And God is identifying who they are.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

I read in the Religion 430-431 seminary manual that "the great majority of those who have come 
into the Church are Ephraimites. It is the exception to find one of any other tribe, unless it 
is of Manasseh" but I don't know if this is still applicable today.  Is it?

It’s not an exception today.  People from all the tribes have been identified, especially in the European nations and Russia.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

You mentioned being patterned after the "same" symbolism. How is the symbolism of the brazen sea 
the same in the Old Testament as in LDS temples?

From the Got Questions website, article titled:  What was the significance of the bronze laver?

“This second laver was much larger than the one in the tabernacle: 15 feet in diameter at the top and about 47 feet in circumference, with a depth of 7.5 feet (1 Kings 7:23). The depth of the water in the bronze laver seems to indicate that the priests completely immersed themselves in it, rather than just washing their hands and feet. The brim of the laver was carved with flowers, and oxen were carved or cut on the outside all around. The laver stood on a pedestal of twelve bronze oxen, three facing each direction of the compass. The temple court also held ten bronze basins for washing the sacrifices (2 Chronicles 4:6), but the Sea, or the bronze laver, was only for the priests to wash in.”

It was for cleansing and purification.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

I can understand the temple still being a sacred place for the Christians before it was destroyed 
by the Romans, but what knowledge do you believe was secretly held by them about the temple when 
they went there?

As I said previously, I don’t believe Christians were performing any ordinances in the Jewish temple at Jerusalem before it was destroyed by the Romans, so why would I believe they had knowledge about that temple that was secretly held by them?  Why do you persist in repeating the same things over and over?  Please engage my prior responses instead of just repeating yourself all the time.

But the Bible is filled with examples of people receiving revelation or other information or experiences that they are told to keep secret.  It’s a directive that comes from God, not from Freemasonry as you want to believe.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

I believe the secrecy surrounding LDS temples can be traced back to the early leaders of the LDS 
Church, who were involved with Freemasonry and its secret signs and symbols.

I don't, and you said this last time.  You will believe whatever you want.  But no, the “secrecy” is plainly biblical, and the symbolism goes back to the beginning.  And as I said before (in my post on January 25), there is ample evidence of these things from ancient Christian burials, ancient Christian art, and even in some Christian writings.  But I’m not going to discuss those other things on this board because it requires information about the temple that can’t be discussed here.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

From what I know, these are the ordinances performed by the LDS in their temples: Baptism for the 
Dead, Confirmations for the Dead, Endowment, Sealing, Initiatory Ordinances.

I don't see temple ordinances that New Testament Christian performed inside or outside the temple, 
comparable to Old Testament temple practices, that Gentile and Israelite Christians were still 
required to perform.

Baptism for the dead is obvious.  For the others, see my response above.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

A former member of the First Presidency taught Jesus visited the wicked spirits in spirit prison 
and preached the gospel to them.

"The spirits of the damned—those who have committed abominable crimes—will have this doctrine 
preached to them, and they will be kept in torment until they repent of their sins. The labors 
of the men who have received the Priesthood in this life will be continued in the life to come, 
in this glorious work of carrying the glad tidings of salvation to those who sit in darkness 
because of their sins—who may be in the condition of the snvediluvians, whom the Lord consigatd 
to prison after destroying them with a flood because they rejected the testimony of Noah and 
those associated with him.  The Lord had promised His servants, however, that these people should 
be visited after they had atoned to some extent for their violation of His laws; and this was the 
glorious mission of our Lord and Savior Jesus while His body lay in the sepulchre.  He went into 
the spirit world and visited these spirits in prison, unlocked the doors of their prisons and 
started again the work of preaching salvation to them to see whether, after having endured the 
wrath of God from the time when they were overwhelmed with the flood until then, they would 
receive the Gospel of salvation and repent of their sins. That is the labor that we have upon us 
as a people, both here and hereafter". (Millennial Star. 1899-02-23: Volume 61, Issue 8, pages 
115-116)

https://ia600403.us.archive.org/13/items/per_utah-and-the-mormons_the-latter-day-saints-millennial-star_1899-02-23_61_8/per_utah-and-the-mormons_the-latter-day-saints-millennial-star_1899-02-23_61_8.pdf

This was later corrected in 1918 by Joseph F Smith (D&C 138:20,29).

I bring up another two passages in the Doctrine and Covenants.

D&C 138:14 says Jesus visited those in peace (who died with a testimony of him in mortality) while 
D&C 76:74-75 says Jesus also visited those in misery (who did not have a testimony of him in 
mortality).

There was nothing “corrected” in 1918 by Joseph F. Smith, because there is nothing out of harmony between Doctrine and Covenants 76 and 138.  

First of all, Section 138:50 tells us that “the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage”, so both the righteous and the wicked were considered to be in spirit “prison”.  And in Luke 4:18, Jesus quoted from Isaiah 61:1 in application to himself, where it tells us that he is “to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound”.  That is for the righteous.

Second, Section 138:20 says that Jesus did not go to the wicked or the rebellious who rejected the testimonies and warnings of the ancient prophets.  On the other hand, Section 76 tells us that Jesus went to those who “died without law” and to the “honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men” (verses 72 and 75), and Section 76 defines the wicked and rebellious (the “liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie”, verse 103) as those of the Telestial kingdom and Jesus did not preach to them. So there is nothing incompatible between these teachings.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

The Bible mentions many things that happened in the temple both in the Old Testament and New 
Testament times.

Under the law of Moses, yes.  Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are all about providing the details of the law.  That's when it was given and that's why it provides all those details.  But what about at Mount Sinai before Israel broke their covenants?

The Book of Mormon is full of temple symbolism and imagery.  

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

I find a few examples of only teachings but no ordinances (not even a baptism) 
performed in or at Nephite temples (Jacob chapters 2-3 - sermons delivered by Jacob; Mosiah 
chapters 2-5 – King Benjamin delivers his address).

Baptisms weren’t performed in temples until after the coming of Christ, and then it was baptism for the dead.

As for ordinances, see one example from Mosiah 2:3 where the people went to the temple and “took of the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings according to the law of Moses”.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

Ether's record of the Jaredites doesn't even mention the temple, but it is meticulous in counting 
down the destruction of the Jaredites all the way down to the last man standing (chapters 13 through 
15).

That’s because the Jaredites predate the house of Israel and the institution of specific places for ordinances.  

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

If the temple of Revelation 11:1-2 is in heaven, why would it make sense for John to need to “measure” those that worship therein?

There is a temple in Jerusalem and the temple in heaven (Revelation 11:19).

You didn’t answer the question.  And, at the time that John wrote the book of Revelation the temple at Jerusalem had been destroyed.  And yes, there is a temple in heaven and Revelation 11:19 is one of but a few places in the entire Bible that mentions it. 

But that wasn’t the question.  The question was about the temple mentioned in Revelation 11:1-2, not Revelation 11:19.  

This is the question to you:  If the temple of Revelation 11:1-2 is in heaven (as you believed), then why would it make sense for John to need to “measure” those that worship therein?

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

There are no Nephite temples or temples constructed by the descendants of Ephraim or Manasseh 
mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

We already know the specified place of the earthly temple – Jerusalem.

How do you know who constructs the temples that are not in heaven that are implied in the book of Revelation?  

And as for the temple at Jerusalem, that one was destroyed in 70 AD.  

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

New Testament Christians never build a physical temple after the one in Jerusalem is destroyed. 

Are you omniscient?  Or otherwise, how do you know this?

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

They gathered in homes or other meeting places like synagogues for worship.

Which are exactly the kinds of places they could have used to set apart a specific area within one or more of those locations and dedicated it for temple related ordinances.  The same kind of thing happened in the early days of the restored Church.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

The concept of temple 
worship in early Christianity was transformed, focusing on Jesus Christ as the ultimate High 
Priest and His atoning sacrifice.

Yes, the concept of temple worship in early Christianity was transformed (and became more informed), focusing on Jesus Christ as the ultimate High Priest and His atoning sacrifice. 

See:  The Temple and Your Spiritual Foundation, By President Russell M. Nelson, October 2021 General Conference: 

“The temple lies at the center of strengthening our faith and spiritual fortitude because the Savior and His doctrine are the very heart of the temple. Everything taught in the temple, through instruction and through the Spirit, increases our understanding of Jesus Christ. His essential ordinances bind us to Him through sacred priesthood covenants. Then, as we keep our covenants, He endows us with His healing, strengthening power.”

But I would say everything in the Old Testament temple also focused on Jesus Christ as the ultimate High Priest and His atoning sacrifice as well, they just didn’t know him by that name.

But this only reinforces and intensifies the focus of the purpose of the temple and its importance, it doesn’t eliminate it.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

“1 Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.  3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.  4 For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;  5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.  6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;  7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.  8 The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.”

When do you think that was fulfilled or will be fulfilled?

I'm not exactly sure when this will be fulfilled, if it's not already. I have a hard time 
comprehending that animal sacrifices will start up again.

It says what it says, and the Gentiles (“strangers”) will be involved in temple worship. The temple is not going away.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, but having the glory of the Lord in that city isn’t a sufficient reason for John to take special notice and say “[a]nd I saw no temple therein”, unless under normal circumstances he would expect to see a temple therein.   Obviously temples were expected in John’s view of the future of Christianity, and it was therefore noteworthy to point out the lack of a temple in New Jerusalem.

John does not see temples in Utah and Missouri in his vision.

In John’s revelation, Jesus talked about the temple and the importance of it in the future of Christianity, saying that the good and faithful members of Christ’s church would become “pillar[s] in the temple of my God”.  That has to happen in a temple somewhere, and it’s not the one in heaven.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

3 Nephi 16:1-3 says nothing about Jesus visiting the scattered tribes around the world before he visited the Nephites as you say above.  Those verses refer to future visits and specifically say that Jesus has not visited them yet:

“For they of whom I speak are they who have not as yet heard my voice; neither have I at any time manifested myself unto them.  But I have received a commandment of the Father that I shall go unto them, and that they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered among my sheep, that there may be one fold and one shepherd; therefore I go to show myself unto them.”  (3 Nephi 16:2–3)

Here's how I interpret those verses.  There are two parts: the past (after the resurrection but 
before the visit to the Nephites) and the future (after the visit to the Nephites).

Verse 1 depicts other visits to scattered tribes before the supposed visit to the Nephites – the 
past.  Verses 2-3 depict future visits – after the Nephites.

"And verily, verily, I say unto you that I have other sheep which are not of this land, neither 
of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to 
minister".

In verse 1, Jesus supposedly speaking to the Nephites, indicates other sheep (not in the land the 
Nephites were, not in parts of the land around the Nephites, nor in the land of Jerusalem) where 
Jesus has been [past tense] to minister.

This is the past.

Here's another example where I swap out the word "whither" to make my reasoning clearer.  Maybe 
it might help you understand how I see it.

Original phrase:  "I have sheep in other parts of the world, not here or in the land of Israel, 
about whither I have been to feed".

Rephrased: " I have sheep in other parts of the world, not here or in the land of Israel, where 
I have been to feed".

Have I already been [past tense] in areas not here or in the land of Israel to feed my sheep?  Yes.

3 Nephi 8:5 sets the time of Christ's death around the beginning of the thirty-fourth year with 
the description of storms and destruction on the fourth day of the first month.

"And it came to pass in the thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the fourth day of the 
month, there arose a great storm, such an one as never had been known in all the land".

3 Nephi 10:18 provides another key timeline reference:

"And it came to pass that in the ending of the thirty and fourth year, behold, I will show unto 
you that the people of Nephi who were spared, and also those who had been called Lamanites, who 
had been spared, did have great favors shown unto them, and great blessings poured out upon their 
heads, insomuch that soon after the ascension of Christ into heaven he did truly manifest himself 
unto them".

The gap between these timeline markers hints at a delay of nearly a year between the resurrection 
and Christ's appearance to the Nephites.

When you consider that 11-month gap, this will make sense for 3 Nephi 16:1 to show the Book of 
Mormon indicating Jesus visited other scattered tribes before he appeared to the Nephites.

3 Nephi 20:25-26 says, "And behold, ye are the children of the prophets; and ye are of the house 
of Israel; and ye are of the covenant which the Father made with your fathers, saying unto Abraham: 
And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. The Father having raised me up 
unto you first, and sent me to bless you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities; 
and this because ye are the children of the covenant".

You really had to work hard to twist and wrest these verses to get it to say what you wanted it to say above.  

But it’s really quite clear in context (remember, context is important.)  

3 Nephi 15:12-24:  Jesus tells the Nephites that he was commanded to not tell their “brethren at Jerusalem” about any of the Nephites or any of the other tribes of the house of Israel, but he was commanded to tell them that he has “other sheep… which are not of this fold”, meaning not of the fold at Jerusalem or the area where Jesus ministered during his mortal ministry.

Then it says in 3 Nephi 16, verse 1: “And verily, verily, I say unto you that I have other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to minister.”

Here Jesus tells the Nephites that he has other sheep which aren’t in any of the areas where Jesus visited during his mortal ministry prior to his resurrection, for the context of chapter 15 tells us that Jesus was referring to his mortal ministry in those verses and there wasn’t a chapter break between chapters 15 and 16 in the original text.  The “land of Jerusalem” included the area in the vicinity of Jerusalem, but Jesus also ministered to Capernaum (and other places around the Sea of Galilee), Nazareth, Bethsaida, Cana, and several other places outside of the “land of Jerusalem” during his mortal ministry.  Jesus had “been to minister” in those places already during his lifetime.

In addition, 3 Nephi 17:4 tells us that the other sheep are the “lost tribes of Israel”, and Jesus is saying he is about to go to them in that verse.

3 Nephi 16:  Verse 2  “For they of whom I speak are they who have not as yet heard my voice; neither have I at any time manifested myself unto them.”

The “they” in this verse refers to the “other sheep” mentioned in verse 1 which were not in any of the areas that Jesus ministered to during his mortal ministry, and they have “not as yet” heard his voice, neither has he manifested himself unto them.

3 Nephi 16:  Verse 3 “But I have received a commandment of the Father that I shall go unto them, and that they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered among my sheep, that there may be one fold and one shepherd; therefore I go to show myself unto them.”

So the Nephites were the first group he visited after his resurrection. Jesus was going to the other tribes later.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

Jesus was not raised up unto the Nephites first.  Christ was raised up first to those in the land 
of Israel.

Of course, Christ was raised up first to those in the land of Israel, since that’s where Jesus spent his mortal ministry.  But after his resurrection and after his forty-day ministry with the apostles in Jerusalem, Jesus went first to the Nephites and then went to all the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” of the scattered tribes just as he said he would.  The Nephites were the first of those visits to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” as Jesus explained.  

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe God had no further dealings with the scattered tribes of Israel after they were scattered?  Do you believe they no longer had prophets of God?  Do you believe God did not give them any scripture?  Do you believe Jesus simply ignored them in his ministry to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”?

I don't believe the Book of Mormon indicating Jesus personally visited other scattered tribes 
around the world.

Ok, so you don’t believe that God had any further dealings with the scattered tribes of Israel after they were scattered, and the prophets they had among them just died off and were forgotten?  Do you believe God just forgot about those tribes or ignored them for a period of time?   That’s an honest question.

The prophet Amos (who lived and prophesied prior to the scattering of the northern tribes) wrote: 

“Hear this word that the Lord hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”  (Amos 3:1–2)

The prophet Amos had “the whole family” of Israel in mind when he wrote those words, so that included all the tribes of Israel.  And the Book of Mormon teaches that God raised up prophets to these other tribes when they went into the other nations and had their own scripture (2 Nephi 29:7-12, Mosiah 3:13).  Why do you believe and teach that God forgot these people and had nothing more to say to them?

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Wait a minute.  Given that Romans 9:7-9 and Galatians 4:28-31 state those who come to Christ become the seed of Abraham and are counted as “the children of the promise”, where do you make a distinction (biblically speaking) in what those promises entail?  Show from scripture where Abraham’s “seed” means only the literal seed for receiving the land promises.

Abraham's seed is literal seed (through the seed of Isaac) plus those Gentiles and Israelites who 
come to faith in Christ.  I believe that while both these groups inherit the blessing of salvation, 
the land covenant is for the literal seed only, based on Old Testament writings. A few scriptures 
come to mind (Ezekiel 36:36; 37:25-28, Amos 9:11-15, and Psalm 147:2).

I don’t find anything in the verses that you list or in Genesis 12:7, 13:14-15, 17, 15:7, 18-21, and 17:8 saying that the land promises made to Abraham are limited to his literal descendants, do you?

Can you show me any verse saying that those promises are limited to literal descendants?

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Your argument above assumes that the population in general had complete access to the records of Ether in the same way as people today have access to the Bible.  (Did the Nephites have printing presses?)  Furthermore, it doesn’t account for the possibly 300 years or so of direct contact with the people who resided in the land prior to their great battle.

Your key word is "possibly".  

The “possibly” is a conservative estimate of the time between the first Nephite landing and the time when Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Mulek, as recorded in the book of Omni, which covers a period of time from 323 to 130 B.C.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Remember, the Lord said he would “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 11:12).

The "outcasts of Israel" in Isaiah 11:12 refer to actual Israelites, not Latter-day Saints who, 
despite receiving a patriarchal blessing identifying them with a specific lineage of Jacob, are 
not literal descendants.

Or, they are literal descendants and receiving their patriarchal blessing is God’s way of identifying them.  

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

The great apostasy (the events of 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12, Revelation 13:4-18, and Revelation 19:19-21) 
is future.

Since you believe they have already taken place, then clearly identify the key markers for those 
mentioned passages.

Revelation 13:4-18 and Revelation 19:19-21 have absolutely nothing to do with the great apostasy. 

Revelation Chapter 13 says that it was given to the “beast” to “make war with the saints, and to overcome them” (verse 7) and verse 10 says the beast will eventually go into captivity and be killed by the sword (what he does will be done unto him):  “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.” But this is good news for the saints of God that are actively participating in Christ’s church at that time, for it says: “Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.”  So there is no great apostasy, the church is still there and the “beast” is attacking it, and the “patience of the saints” is that they have assurance that the “beast” will ultimately get what’s coming to him.

As for chapter 19:19-21, those verses simply describe those who are fighting against God at the time of the second coming of Jesus Christ.  There’s no indication of any kind of apostasy in those verses, and in fact the chapter also describes the coming of the bridegroom for the “marriage of the Lamb” and the “white” wedding garment which represents “righteousness of the saints” (verses 7-9).  The church of Christ is there waiting for his return.

I think you are trying to stretch a connection between 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 and 19 because of modern Christian pop culture (movies and books and internet theories) regarding the so-called “antichrist”, for which many popular theories claim that the “man of sin” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is the same person as the “beast” of Revelation 13.

One of the many problems with that interpretation is the Bible never says there is only one human person who is THE antichrist, but instead it says there are many antichrists (1 John 2:18). The only biblical author that uses the term antichrist is John in his first and second epistles.  And the modern Christian pop culture attempt at trying to identify a single human who is THE antichrist causes a complete misinterpretation of the verses and ignores some very important pieces of the context.  So the only connection between 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 and 19 is this very weak assumption that these verses are talking about the same human individual.  And apparently you are buying into that interpretation, and it is causing you to believe that the apostasy of 2 Thessalonians 2 should also be found in Revelation 13 and 19 even though there is nothing in those latter chapters to suggest such a thing.

As for 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, the “man of sin” is Satan and those he influences.  Satan is THE antichrist and those he influences are antichrists, and it is through those under Satan’s influence that his works of darkness are made manifest.  And, according to the apostle Paul, Satan’s power was at work from Paul’s day (as he says in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, “the mystery of iniquity doth already work”) and his work will continue until Jesus returns and exposes him.  So, Satan works through a myriad of persons from Paul’s day all the way until the second coming of Jesus, where Paul says the coming of Jesus “is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders” (verse 9).  This is one huge reason that this so called “antichrist” cannot be one single human being.  Humans don’t live that long.

One such manifestation of the “man of sin” was when the Roman army besieged and captured Jerusalem and destroyed the city and the temple in 70 AD under the leadership of Titus.

The Wikipedia article on Titus summarizes this as follows:  “When Vespasian was declared Emperor on 1 July 69, Titus was left in charge of ending the Jewish rebellion. In 70, he besieged and captured Jerusalem, and destroyed the city and the Second Temple. For this achievement Titus was awarded a triumph; the Arch of Titus commemorates his victory and still stands today.”

This is a description of the Arch of Titus:  “The arch contains panels depicting the triumphal procession celebrated in 71 AD after the Roman victory culminating in the fall of Jerusalem, and provides one of the few contemporary depictions of artifacts from Herod's Temple.”  The same article describes some of the decorative sculptures on the arch: “The south inner panel depicts the spoils taken from the Temple in Jerusalem. The golden candelabrum or Menorah is the main focus and is carved in deep relief. Other sacred objects being carried in the triumphal procession are the Gold Trumpets, the fire pans for removing the ashes from the altar, and the Table of Showbread”.

The arch contains this inscription: “The Senate and the Roman people (dedicate this) to the deified Titus Vespasian Augustus, son of the deified Vespasian”

2 Thessalonians 2:4 says (of the man of sin) that he is the one that “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God”.  This was fulfilled by the works of Satan being manifest through Titus and his army when the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. 

So, for both the apostasy and “man of sin”, there is no reason to assume that either of these are some kind of future event, and there’s no reason to stretch and strain to try to make 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 and 19 depict the same events.  Paul clearly says that the man of lawlessness was already at work during his day (in verse 7) and for the apostasy he said it would begin “after my departing” (Acts 20:28-31).  Thus, these are both past events.

And you and I have discussed 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 several times already.  I’ll just repeat here what I’ve said on this topic many times before so you can see that this is something that you should already know, and to point out that you have never engaged my arguments against your interpretation on these verses or the context, and you simply continue to repeat what you want to believe about them.

In my post to you on 10/10/2019 I said:

The “great apostasy is something that Paul said would happen between the time of writing his letter, and the Second Coming.  That already happened, right after the apostles ‘departed’, just as Paul said it would (Acts 20:29-31).  And right within the context of the verses you reference (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12), in verse 7, Paul said that the cause of the great apostasy was already beginning:  2 Th 2:7  ‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.’”

In my post to you on 10/14/2019, I said:

“I see verses 8 and 9 as the second coming triumph of Jesus over the works of Satan and all who follow him (the ‘lawless’ ones).   Satan is the ‘man of sin’, ‘the son of perdition’, whose works will be destroyed at the coming of Christ.  (Isaiah 14:15-17 also refers to Satan in similar terms).  From the point of view of Paul’s time and place, it is Satan ‘who now worketh, and Christ suffereth him to work, until the time is fulfilled that he shall be taken out of the way.’ (2 Thes 2:7, JST).  He is taken out of the way at the second coming.  And the great apostasy was something that happened early on in his ‘workings’, shortly after the departure of the apostles.”

In my post to you on 10/30/2019, commenting on 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8 I said:

“The ESV translates it this way: ‘For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.  And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.’   It's the same word for ‘lawless[ness]’ in both verses.  So my understanding is that it's talking about exactly the same thing, and it was already begun by Satan during Paul's lifetime.”

In my post to you on 06/15/2023, commenting on your attempt at connection Revelation 19:11-21 to 2 Thessalonians 2, I said:

“There's no mention of an apostasy in Revelation 19:11-21, that's because it has already taken place (it's depicted in Revelation 12 by the ‘woman’ going into the wilderness).  Paul said the apostasy (i.e. wolves entering into the church and ‘not sparing the flock’) would happen after his ‘departing’ in Acts 20:28-31.”

And in my post to you on 06/19/2023 commenting AGAIN about your attempt at connecting 2 Thessalonians 2 with Revelation 19:19-20, I said:

“So if you believe 2 Thes 2 is referring to the beast mentioned in Revelation 19:19-20, then how is it that this beast began his work at the time of Paul (i.e. ‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work’)?  Is the beast a man, or something else that can live from the time of Paul until the coming of Christ?”

External Markers of the Apostasy

And if you want to see some external markers of the apostasy, here are a few:

Clement of Rome (he is mentioned in the New Testament in Philippians 4:3, he died around 100 AD) confirmed that Paul’s prophesy where he said after his “departing… grievous wolves [would] enter in among [the bishops], not sparing the flock” and that even the bishops themselves would become corrupt (Acts 20:29-31) had come to pass.  He wrote the following in his letter to the church at Corinth:

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.”

Notice how Clement said that the bishops who have died already are “blessed” because they would not need to endure the overthrowing of their office by other men as was being done currently in the church.

And Eusebius (an early church historian), in his Church History (Book III, chapter 32:7-8), quoted St. Hegesippus (c. 108 – c.180 AD) as also confirming the fulfillment of Paul’s prophecies about the apostasy, saying:

Quote

 

7. In addition to these things the same man [Hegesippus], while recounting the events of that period, records that the Church up to that time had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, since, if there were any that attempted to corrupt the sound norm of the preaching of salvation, they lay until then concealed in obscure darkness.

8. But when the sacred college of apostles had suffered death in various forms, and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then the league of godless error took its rise as a result of the folly of heretical teachers, who, because none of the apostles was still living, attempted henceforth, with a bold face, to proclaim, in opposition to the preaching of the truth, the 'knowledge which is falsely so-called.'

 

There’s a lot more that I could add to this showing the gradual change of key doctrines that occurred over the next 300 years, but this is enough for now.

I’ll also add to this what I posted in the “Overthrowing the Church of God” thread:

In 325 AD at the first Nicene Council, the Roman emperor Constantine was the one who insisted that the word homoousious be inserted into the creed, a word that redefined the oneness of God, in an attempt at unifying Christianity.

And then on November 27, 380 AD, Theodosius I (the Roman emperor from 379 to 395), Gratian (the emperor of the Western Roman Empire from 367 to 383) and Valentinian II (the Roman emperor in the western part of the Roman Empire between AD 375 and 392), published the "Edict of Thessalonica", whereby they ordered that all their subjects should profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, threatening both divine punishment and imperial retribution for those who rejected the Nicene creed. 

This made the governing state the enforcer of the doctrines of the church that remained.  Is that the same church that you believe has never gone into apostasy?

Then of course years later there was the Protestant reformation, where (among other things) they declared a belief in “sola scriptura”, asserting that the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for the Christian faith and practice, basically cutting the living God out of the deal and confining him to a single book that they get to interpret all by themselves, and effectively rejecting the possibility of further revelation, which is a fulfillment of Paul’s prophecy that in the last days that they would have “a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” (2 Timothy 3:1-7).

One more question about 2 Thessalonians chapter 2.  Do you agree that Paul was saying that the man of sin (and his lawlessness) was already at work in 2 Thessalonians verse 7?  If so, what is that referring to?  And given that it was starting in Paul’s time how could there be any connection to Revelation 13 and 19?

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Daniel 2:44, “And in the days of these kings [What kings?  The kingdoms of the toes and feet that were part iron and part clay] shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.”

There are two very major problems with your use of this verse as a proof text for your claim:

First:   The “days of these kings” come in the latter days, long after:

• The head of Gold (Babylon)
• The chest and arms of silver (the Mede-Persian monarchy)
• The brazen belly and thighs (the Greco-Macedonian empire)
• The legs of iron (Rome – that kingdom was divided into the Western and Eastern empires beginning in 286 CE)
• Finally, the kingdoms of the feet and toes mixed of iron and clay (the modern kingdoms and states of the world that came about after the fall of Rome, having remnants of Roman influence [represented by the iron] among them). 

The kingdom that the God of heaven sets up that shall “never be destroyed” is in the days of these modern kingdoms (the feet and toes mixed of iron and clay) that came about after the fall or Rome (not at the time of Jesus).  So the timing of the setting up of the “kingdom, which shall never be destroyed” is way off and doesn’t fit your assertion.

Joseph Smith taught that the ten toes is the government of the United States.

So that’s all you’ve got?  You throw out a red herring and hope I forget the implications of Daniel 2:44 related to your argument about the apostasy?

As for your red herring above, CFR for where Joseph Smith “taught that the ten toes is the government of the United States”.

If you are thinking about Joseph Smith’s conversation with Robert Matthews in November 1835 (also known under the heading of “False Doctrines of Joshua the Jewish Minister” in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith), that’s part of a scribal summary of a long conversation between Joseph Smith and Robert Matthews, who was also known by the name Matthias and disguised himself initially in Kirtland by calling himself Joshua, the Jewish prophet.

The statement in the conversation where it says “The feet of the image are the government of these United States” is a quote from Robert Matthews (aka:  Joshua the Jewish Minister), not Joseph Smith.  And at the end of the conversation, Joseph Smith said: “I told him that his doctrine was of the devil, that he was in reality in possession of a wicked and depraved spirit”.   See Joseph Smith Papers - Conversations with Robert Matthews, 9–11 November 1835, and take note where the manuscript says “After dinner the conversation was resumed and Joshua proceeded to make some remarks on the prophesies, as follows:”, and the comment about Daniel’s prophecy is in the portion of Joshua’s remarks.

Now that we’ve dispensed with the red herring, what about Daniel 2:44?  How do you explain that?  Clearly the kingdom of God as described in Daniel 2 could not have been established at the time of the mortal ministry of Jesus, since his ministry was during the height of the Roman Empire (not the kingdoms of the iron and clay).

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

“Whenever God's work on earth intensifies, so does the opposition against it.  The exact same situation is described in Revelation chapter 12, where "the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born" (v 4), and "when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child." (v 13)  And "the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood." (v 15).  And "the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (v 17)”

In response to the attacks upon the church by Satan, the woman (the church) “fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, the they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days” (v 6), and the woman was “given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and a half time, from the face of the serpent” (v 14). 

So when the “woman” (the church) fled into the wilderness, it depicted the time that the church was removed from among men on the earth and its presence on the earth was essentially “destroyed”.

And yes, the restored church in the latter days is the same church brought back to be among men on the earth again, as the Lord said it is the “coming forth of my church out of the wilderness” (Doctrine and Covenants 5:14, 33:5).

The Joseph Smith translation of Revelation 12:5 says, "And the woman fled into the wilderness, 
where she had a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and 
threescore years".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/jst/jst-rev/12.5?lang=eng#p5

When do you believe this period of 1,260 years started?

I don’t believe it’s an exact date range; it is simply a long period of time.

But Revelation chapter 12 teaches that the woman (the church) would flee into the wilderness for a period of time, and therefore it wouldn’t be among men on earth during that time.  This is a reference to the time of apostasy of the church that was among men on earth during that time.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

We discussed the measuring of the temple. Would you explain the time frame and setting for 
Revelation 11:2? ("But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; 
for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and 
two months").

I brought up the measuring of the temple, you commented on it, but you have not answered the question I asked you about why John needed to measure the people attending the temple if it is a temple in heaven (see above).

As for the time frame and setting, it is likely a future time when there is another “abomination of desolation” attempt on the temple, but the temple will not be desolated.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Does that mean the church was in an “’some’ institutional apostasy caused by false teachings, which indirectly lead to ‘some’ individual apostasy when these false teachings [were] taught and believed” during the time when Paul was teaching this false belief as you said in your last post?  (But that would not be the correct meaning of the word apostasy, of course).

In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, Paul speaks about those who are alive and remain at the coming of the 
Lord. Some have interpreted this as Paul believing that he might be among those who are alive at 
Christ's return. However, it's important to understand that Paul's writings often emphasize readiness 
for the Second Coming without providing a specific timeline. 

I already addressed the great apostasy earlier.

The problem is that Paul isn’t speaking about “those” who are alive and remain at the coming of the Lord, he says “WE which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord”.  He preaches that he and those around him will be alive and remain until the Lord returns. 

As for readiness, pretty much all the prophets of God and apostles of Jesus Christ emphasized readiness, but how many of them included themselves and their listeners as being alive when Christ returns like Paul did?

As for the apostasy, you just said it was future, but you haven’t addressed how that’s possible given that Paul taught that “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work” beginning during his time.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

I believe Isaiah 44:6 in the same way as this rhetoric was used in scripture to indicate that no other Gods compare to the one God who is above all others.

All future worthy LDS males who hope to become Gods may not compare EQUALLY in ALL things like 
Heavenly Father but they will compare nonetheless ("They will have everything that our Heavenly 
Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge").  No two Gods in LDS 
theology compare exactly the same.  Not even twins compare exactly in all details. Not even clones.

Skipping your unrelated diversion attempt and getting back to the language of Isaiah 44:6 (which is what I was talking about): Do you believe there is no other city other than Babylon, since Isaiah 44:6 uses the same language as these verses?

Isaiah 44:6 says “Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

Isaiah 47:8 “Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children”

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

Do you believe Babylon is the one and only city and there is none else besides Babylon, using the same logic you do for Isaiah 44:6?

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Why do you suppose that the majority of Christians prior to the invention of the doctrine of creation out of nothing and prior to the first council of Nicaea (when Constantine added the word “homoousious” to the creed) believed and widely taught that God is the God over other gods, and that men become gods?

The term was strongly promoted by Athanasius, a leading figure in the early Church and later bishop 
of Alexandria, although the word itself was not initially a part of the original Nicene Creed. It 
was introduced during the council to clarify that Jesus Christ is of the same substance (Greek: 
"homoousios") as God the Father, rejecting the idea that Christ was a created being or of a different 
substance (as suggested by Arius and his followers).

The decision to include "homoousios" was made after much debate, with Emperor Constantine playing 
a role in urging consensus among the bishops. The term became a central part of the Nicene Creed 
to define orthodox Christian belief against Arianism.

You didn’t answer the question.  The question was:

Why do you suppose that the majority of Christians prior to the invention of the doctrine of creation out of nothing and prior to the first council of Nicaea (when Constantine added the word “homoousious” to the creed) believed and widely taught that God is the God over other gods, and that men become gods?

As for the word homoousious, it has already been documented that the Roman Emperor Constantine is the person who insisted that the word be inserted into the creed.  Prior to the First Council of Nicaea, the Gnostics were the first theologians to use the word homoousious (or at least before the Gnostics there is no trace at all of its existence).  Basilides seems to be the first Gnostic to use the word.  Athanasius was simply giving support to what the Emperor Constantine had inserted into the creed.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Now doesn’t that sound exactly like what the early Christian Father Origen taught in the quote I provided above?

How do you explain that?

Regarding my comment about the LDS seminary manual ("By obedience and devotion to the truth he 
[Jesus] attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, 
while yet in his pre-existent state" (Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, 
chapter 4)"

I don't understand the question. Please clarify.
 

From Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual:  Chapter 4, Jesus Christ, the Son of God:

“As far as man is concerned, all things center in Christ. He is the Firstborn of the Father. By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state. As such he became, under the Father, the Creator of this earth and of worlds without number”.

Compare the above to what the early Christian Father Origen (185-254 AD) taught about Jesus Christ, the Son of God:

“And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.” (See Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, paragraph 2).

Now here is my question:   Doesn’t the quote from the Doctrines of the Gospel Student manual sound very much like what the early Christian Father Origen taught in the quote above?   How do you explain that?

Is the question clear to you now? 

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

God the Father is the God of those on our earth and of worlds without number.  He is the God of all other gods, and thus more advanced than any other.  And Joseph Smith taught that all the Gods “before” us are made kings and priests onto him, the one God who is above all.  So your question doesn’t fit.

How was Heavenly Father (of our Earth) made a king and priest unto his Father (aka, the Grandfather 
of Jesus)?

This demonstrates the flaw in your attempt at misconstruing our doctrine, and your refusal to engage what I said previously on this topic.  Since you aren’t engaging what I said, I’ll just repeat what I have said before on this topic:

Joseph Smith taught and what the revelations teach is that Heavenly Father [the God of all worlds, which are without number] is the one Eternal God of all other gods (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32), and when we learn how to be Gods ourselves (through God’s plan as provided in the scripture), we become “kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before” us.  We are always subject to the one God and Father who is above all others.  And He isn’t made a king and a priest unto anyone else, since he is the one God who is “above all” (Ephesians 4:6).

You are doing this on purpose.  Focus on what has been said previously and progress the discussion instead of spinning around and around.  Do you really not have anything else to say?

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

But back to my point, the earliest Christians (the ones that were the closest to the time of Jesus and the apostles and prior to the first council of Nicaea when the “homoousious” Father and Son was invented) clearly taught that men become Gods and achieving Godhood.  Why do you suppose that was the case?

The concept of men becoming gods, often referred to as theosis or divinization, can be found in 
early Christian theology. Church Fathers like Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Athanasius 
discussed this idea. For example, Athanasius famously said, "God became man so that man might 
become God".

I don't believe men becoming Gods and achieving Godhood is biblical so I don't believe those 
earliest Christians.  

But it is biblical.  We’ve discussed this many times before.

And that’s the very reason the early Christians WIDELY taught that men become gods, because they received that teaching from Jesus and the apostles.

And the reason you don’t find it to be biblical is because you base your beliefs on the tradition handed down after the Father and Son were made to be “homoousious” by the Emperor Constantine, which is in itself unbiblical.  But that shapes your thinking and your rejection of or reinterpretation of all the biblical teachings that the early Christians understood to be teaching of the existence of other gods and that men become gods and that Jesus is the “second God”.

Why do you think the earliest Christians taught that men become gods but later they did not?

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

It's not even in the Book of Mormon, which is said to contain the fulness 
of the gospel.

But it is:

3 Nephi 28:10: "And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one".

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

God the Father (the God above all gods) has many attributes.  Among them I would list the following:

1. He is an eternal being (he has always existed).
2. He has all power
3. He has all glory
4. He is all knowing
5. He is perfect
6. He rules over all other beings

But none of us have all power, all glory, are all knowing, are perfect, nor do we rule over all other beings.

But through the atonement of his Son Jesus Christ, God the Father provides a way for us to receive all those other attributes (except that in point #6 we will still be in subjection to the one God who is above all other gods, the same way Jesus is subject to him).

I addressed some of this earlier.

From what I understand of LDS theology

You clearly don’t understand LDS theology, nor do you engage any of my corrections to your misrepresentations of LDS theology.  You are obviously trying to do this on purpose.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

What is “the nature of angels”, exactly?  Please provide a definition from scripture.

We see them as human representatives (see the letter to the seven churches for example)
and beings created by Christ (Colossians 1:16).

Colossians 1:16 says nothing about angels (no surprise there).

In John 1:3 it says of Jesus, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

In other words, Jesus didn’t create things (or beings) that were not made.  Jesus did not create God the Father, for example, nor does it say he created the beings who are coeternal with God that were later given the job description of angels.

Colossians 1:16 says, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him”.

God the Father and the beings who are coeternal with God the Father are not “things”, nor were they created, and Colossians 1:16 doesn’t say that Jesus created them.

As for the “principalities, or powers” mentioned in Colossians 1:16, those are the governmental organizations (whether they be in heaven or on earth) that Jesus organized.  This is what Paul had in mind when he wrote to Titus, “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work.” (Titus 3:1)

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

But the exact nature of the later is not 
clearly identified.

Right, because there is no such thing as the nature of angels apart from the nature of those individuals (spirits of men, mortal men, resurrected men) who are called to be angels (messengers of God).  It’s just a job description. So why try to make something up about “the nature of angels” when there is nothing to support it in the Bible?  Honestly, where do you think that belief came from?

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

I'll say they may have some characteristics of seraphim and cherubim.  
One of these types of creatures has wings.

Where does the Bible say that seraphim and cherubim are angels?  (Hint: It doesn’t).  

So why combine them?  Why misconstrue the meaning?  Why invent a classification for these creatures that isn’t supported by scripture?  Is it tradition again?

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Paul intentionally used the Greek word génos when speaking to his pagan audience when he taught them that we are in fact the “offspring of God”.  Why would Paul use a term that his Greek audience would understand in the way you described it if Paul did not intend for it to be understood that way?

I believe he was using their foundational knowledge to correct their perspective.

Paul did indeed correct their perspective by teaching them: “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring (génos) 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.” (Acts 17:29)

If we are the génos of God (his offspring, the very same kind of being as he is), it is foolish to think of God as any kind of being (or thing) different than we are.  That’s how Paul corrected them.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

If you think his pagan audience believed in a heavenly mother (or mothers), could you please 
provide evidence?

Remember, you were the one who told me about how the pagans would understand the Greek word génos when Paul was speaking to them.  In your post on January 2, you said:

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

So why don’t you tell me what they believed about a heavenly mother since you were the one who said they would understand it that way?

Do you think Paul was trying to deceive his pagan audience?  Several people converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ after Paul gave that speech (“certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them” - Acts 17:34).  Did these people believe what Paul taught them based on a lie?

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not 
received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, 
whereby we cry, Abba, Father.  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we 
are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with 
Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together".

The heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ all have these qualities:
    • They are led by the Spirit of God.
    • They are the sons of God.
    • They are adopted.
    • They refer to God as Abba Father.

But Joseph Smith taught that these "heirs" are exalted beings (the Gods). 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-18?lang=eng

You cannot pick and choose what qualities to keep and which to discard when speaking of the heirs.

So, all those who are not exalted are not led by the Spirit of God, are not the sons of God, are 
not adopted, and are not allowed to refer to God as Abba Father.

Again, what’s the issue here?  You are just repeating yourself and not explaining why those things are mutually exclusive.  It’s not picking and choosing anything if nothing is incompatible with the views, they go together. There is a progression to what Paul taught, and a progression to what Joseph Smith taught, and they are completely compatible with each other. 

The apostle Paul taught that becoming an heir of God requires that we be led by the Spirit of God.  What if a person starts out being led by the Spirit of God but then abandons that path?  Are they still an heir of God?  Paul explains that as he continues, “if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him”.  That is clearly a conditional statement.  What if we don’t “suffer with him” by enduring to the end?  Are we still heirs of God?  Of course not.

And what exactly does it mean to be an “heir” of God?  An “heir” is a person inheriting and continuing the legacy of a predecessor. Those who are led by the spirit of God become the sons of God and are adopted and are heirs of God, joint-heirs with Jesus Christ.  So, what does an “heir of God” inherit?  That is exactly what Joseph Smith explained.  He said it means: “To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before.”

So again, what is incompatible about these statements?  Joseph Smith is simply stating the obvious progression of what it means to be an heir of God.

And isn’t that exactly what the Bible teaches about those who inherit all that God has?

“He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.”  (Revelation 21:7)

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” (Revelation 3:21)

“And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:  And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.”  (Revelation 2:26–27)

Does the book of Revelation contradict Paul by explaining what the heir actually inherits?

And yes, all those who are not exalted fell off the path of being led by the Spirit of God (at some point) because they did not endure to the end (they didn’t “suffer with him”), and they are not the sons of God and adopted in the legal sense of receiving the inheritance, and therefore they are not ultimately “glorified together” with him (receiving exaltation).

So what is your objection?  Be clear.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, God is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting and the same unchangeable God, and those teachings are in agreement with the Bible.  And Jesus is from all eternity to all eternity too.  We believe those things 100%.  What’s your point?

The LDS Jesus is not eternally God in the same sense that he is an eternal being.

That’s exactly the same as the biblical Jesus.  So, what’s your point?

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

Regarding the creation of Lucifer by Jesus: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn 
of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, 
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all 
things were created by him, and for him" (Colossians 1:15-16).

No angels mentioned, no Lucifer mentioned, the verse doesn’t say Jesus created beings like God the Father and the others that are coeternal with him.

So you have nothing that says Jesus created Lucifer or angels now.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Compare what you said above to the following quote from Hebrews 13:8:

“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.”

The Biblical Jesus:  Originally the “firstbegotten” of the Father (Hebrews 1:6), he was “made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), he “grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him” (Luke 2:40), and he “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” (Luke 2:52).  And he “learned obedience” and was “made perfect”, and “became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Hebrews 5:8-9), and was “highly exalted” by his Father and “given” a name above every other name (Philippians 2:9).  And now he sits at the right hand of the Father, sitting with his Father in his throne (Revelation 3:21). 

Can you explain the difference between what you said above compared to what scripture says of Jesus?

Christ is both man and God.  His "God" portion does not lack in power or knowledge. "For in him 
dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9).

Yes, and God lives, and God hasn’t changed.  God still reveals his word to prophets and apostles today just the same as he has done since the beginning.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

I have explained to you previously that God the Father has always been the most advanced being of all and the God over all other Gods

Do you believe God the Father (of our Earth) is more advanced than his Father God or all his 
other spirit brothers and sisters who became Gods in their respective realms?

You are doing this on purpose.  You’ve been corrected on the “of our Earth” comment several times.  Be honest.  Engage my prior comments.  Quit repeating nonsense and demonstrate that you are interested in advancing the discussion instead of spinning in circles.  It seems you are running out of things to say.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

But the Bible clearly teaches that God the Father “gave” glory to Jesus before the world began (John 17:5, 22, 24).

The main point here is that Jesus did not originate with that glory, it was glory given to Jesus before the world began.  Why would it need to be given to him in the beginning if he had that glory all along?

Furthermore, Jesus gives that same exact glory to his disciples who become “one” with him and his Father, in the same way Jesus is one with his Father.  God offers it to all who come unto him and become one with him and his Son.

Does this mean you believe God the Father giving glory to Jesus and Jesus giving the same exact 
glory to his disciples (who become "one" with him and his Father) mean Jesus became a God and all 
these disciples will become (will be formed into) Gods?

Clearly the Bible says God the Father “gave” glory to Jesus before the world began, and Jesus “gave” that same exact glory to his disciples as he was praying that they would be one with him and his Father in the exact same way Jesus is one with his Father. 

If what Jesus said is true (that his disciples can be “one” with him and the Father in the exact same way Jesus is one with his Father) then we don’t need some made up definition like homoousious that was implemented by the Roman Emperor Constantine to try to make Jesus and his Father into one being.  Jesus explained it already right in the biblical text. 

Jesus made it clear.  It means that those who receive the same glory as God and are one with the Father partake of the divine nature and portray the image of God, they emulate the purposes and will of the Father.  They are true representatives of Him.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

The point about John 17:5, 22, and 24 is what I said about it above:  If Jesus was God and always God, why would someone else (God the Father in this case) need to “give” the glory to him?

I apply the same logic to the LDS Heavenly Father.

LDS theology does not teach that anyone gave God the Father his glory.  Rather, it teaches:

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

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

I see you are downplaying the meaning of “worship” to be “pay homage, obeisance”, but the Greek word translated as “worship” in Revelation 3:9 is proskuneo, and is the very same word used in verses referring to worship of God, such as Matthew 4:10 where Jesus says, "Thou shalt worship [proskuneo] the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."   There really is no difference.

Jesus is clearly causing some humans to worship other humans because of what they had attained.

The verse says they come to worship before their feet.  This does not mean they worship their feet 
nor do they worship the members of the church of Philadelphia (who were mortals at the time).

Nice try.  Jesus taught that the worshiping of these individuals would happen at a future time (“I will make them to come and worship before thy feet”, which doesn’t mean they would mortals at that future time.

All of the promises that Jesus makes to the “seven churches” (the entire church) include the future promises to those who “overcome”, which includes men sitting with God in his throne in the same way Jesus sits on the throne with his God and Father.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

You seem to be asserting that Joseph Smith said the words, “this is the way Heavenly Father became God”, even after you have been corrected for making that claim.

I assumed the quote from the 1997 Gospel Principles ("This is the way our Heavenly Father became 
God" immediately after the paragraph "When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, 
and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top") was voiced by Joseph Smith – which you 
clarified below and said it should not be attributed to Joseph Smith.  I understand your view.

Ha ha, my view?  That’s a good one. These are basic writing rules from way back in grade school.  When a part of the text is within quotation marks it indicates a direct quotation from a source.  When there are no quotation marks, it is something that was added by the compiler of the sources or someone else.  You know the difference.

So, I don’t think you “assumed” it to be from Joseph Smith, because you originally copied it directly from the Vincent Poldrugovac book as I demonstrated in this thread:  https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74208-the-uniqueness-of-the-lds-church/page/35/

You either misrepresented the statement as coming from Joseph Smith (are you the author of that book?) or you were deceived into thinking it was a quotation from Joseph Smith based on the altered quote published in the Vincent Poldrugovac book (printed in Canada).  The author of that book altered the source and completely omitted the inner quotation marks and blended the two separate quotations from Joseph Smith with the editorial statement from the book publishers, deceptively making it appear to be one single quotation all coming from Joseph Smith (and the actual quotations from Joseph Smith in Gospel Principles are from two completely different parts of his sermon, the Gospel Principles references indicate this).

There is absolutely no doubt at all that you were copying from the Vincent Poldrugovac book, because you even included the messed up references from the Poldrogovac book in this post from you on August 26, 2021.

Quote

“When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, 
until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you must 
begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. 
But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will 
have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a 
great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.  This is the 
way our Heavenly Father became God. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know 
for a certainty the character of God" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 
345–346, 348; previous Gospel Principles edition, chapter 47).

Compare the quote from your 2021 post above with this image from the Poldrugovac book:

Do you see how your reference at the bottom of the quotation in your post, “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–346, 348” matches the Vincent Poldrugovac book exactly except for your insertion of the words “previous…. edition”?  That is not how the references appear in the Gospel Principles manual.

See also your post on 11/04/022 where you quote directly from the Vincent Poldrugovac book complete with the ellipsis in exactly the same places, and my response on 11/04/2022.

And I have “clarified” this with you several times now (not just in this post) as you can see from the post links from you above.  Reread the thread link I posted above, it lays it all out.

Since you have been corrected on this several times before there is no question that you are doing this on purpose and you are intentionally trying to misrepresent Joseph Smith’s teachings in this regard.  That was also the case when you were posting with the username TheTanakas and pretending to be a member of the church in order to deceive people by promoting false, inaccurate, or strange interpretations of our doctrine.

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

There is nothing I can see in scripture about Heavenly Father becoming God only after he becomes 
a Heavenly Father by having spirit children.  I think you said several times that Heavenly Father 
becoming God is only in the sense that he became our Parent.

I have said that some of the spirits that are coeternal with God “aligned with God as his spirit children in the beginning”, but where did I ever say that Heavenly Father became our God is “only in the sense that he became our Parent”?

It was actually you (posting as marineland on 11/21/2022) that said, “According to what I understand from LDS teachings, Heavenly Father becomes ‘our God’ when ‘we’ are born as spirit children to him and his heavenly wife (or wives).”

To which I responded on 11/22/2022:

“God the Father has always existed and we have always existed (spirits or intelligences have no beginning or end).  Abraham 3 teaches this, and so did Joseph Smith.  God the Father has always been greater than and more intelligent than all other spirits that have existed eternally.  Abraham 3 explains this as well.  Your version above doesn't seem to take this into account.  So that suggests to me that God has always been God in the sense that he has always been the greatest or most intelligent (‘the God of all other gods before this world was’ - D&C 121:32), but he ‘became’ our God (as Joseph Smith taught) when he showed us his plan that provides a way so that we can progress and become like him and we accepted his plan. “

So I think you are just trying to make it sound like I fit in to your portrayal of “LDS teachings”.

Here are some additional discussions of mine on this topic:

From my post on 10/31/2022:

Joseph Smith didn't say anything about God being a man before he became God.  In fact, Joseph Smith said that "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did."  Was Jesus God before he dwelt on earth?  Of course he was.  Who created the earth that Jesus was born as a man upon?  Jesus did.  So why should we think anything different for God the Father?

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

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

God became who he is by increasing in glory, by bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

From my post on 11/10/2022 :

I've made this clear.  Joseph Smith never said that Heavenly Father was a man before he became God.  Joseph Smith didn't provide the sequence of events in such a way to suggest he was a man first, and God later.

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

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

From my post on 12/14/2024:

Furthermore, I explained to you previously how it was that Joseph Smith taught that God “became God “in relationship to us in my post on 10/30/2022 and 11/10/2022.  God the Father has always been above all others.  How he came to be our God is explained in this statement from Joseph Smith:

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

[End quoting posts]

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

  The quote is saying that all Gods “before us” became kings and priests “to God”.  All Gods are subject to the one God and Father of all who is above all.  How can they possibly be made kings and priests to God if they became Gods “before the LDS Heavenly Father became a God” as you claim?

Revelation 1:6 ("And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and 
dominion for ever and ever. Amen") is connected to Revelation 20:6 ("Blessed and holy is he that 
hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be 
priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years").  

Those in the second resurrection are harmed by the second death.

An irrelevant response to avoid answering the question (again, no surprise). 

Heavenly Father [of worlds without number] is the God and Father of all other gods of all other realms.

This is how Joseph Smith taught it:  “Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you”.  (History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844])

In other words, all the Gods “before us” (compared to our place and time right now) became “kings and priests to God”, the one God who is above all others and is the God of all other gods.

So all Gods are subject to the one God and Father of all who is above all.  How can they possibly be made kings and priests to God if they became Gods “before the LDS Heavenly Father became a God” as you claim?

Engage what I’m saying.  Show that you are trying to further the discussion instead of spinning around and repeating yourself. 

On 3/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, theplains said:

On 3/3/2025 at 10:23 PM, InCognitus said:

CFR on where “The LDS Plan of Salvation” says that gods can be “formed”, using that word.

Instead of focusing on or looking for a very specific word, let’s focus on semantics.

So in other words, no.  You don’t have a source.  That’s what I thought.  Thank you.

Now a few more questions:

Do you believe what the apostle Paul taught about revelation?

The apostle Paul taught: “For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.  And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost” (1 Thessalonians 1:5-6).   He also wrote, “my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”  (1 Corinthians 2:4–5)

Do you believe these things?

Also from what the apostle Paul taught in 1 Corinthians chapter 2.  Do you believe that God can reveal to us by the Spirit the “deep things of God”?  Where is the “Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God” in your view?  This is the power of God, is it not?

What do you believe the apostle Paul had in mind when he said, in the last days, there would be those "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof"?  (2 Timothy 3:5)

[theplains]

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Can you demonstrate this for people who are of the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Manasseh, and Ephraim?  Show me large groups of people who can actually trace their family tree back to one of these tribes.

I can't do that with actual documented proof but I'm speculating that the parents would pass 
on these traditions to their children and their children's children so they know they are 
descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and that are viewed as God's special people delivered 
in the Exodus. Some of this is inferred in Exodus 12:24-27; Deuteronomy 4:9-10; 6:6-7; 
11:18-19. 

They would also be teaching their children the Hebrew language, unlike the Native American 
Indians which did not inherit the Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian language from their ancestors.

The idea that Native Americans might be descended from the Israelites is rooted in external 
theories, often from non-Native sources, such as early European settlers.

It has been particularly popularized by various 19th and early 20th-century religious groups, 
notably the LDS Church, which teaches that Native Americans are descended from the Lamanites.
 
Native traditions do not mention such a connection, and instead, Native American tribes have 
their own creation stories and migration histories that are deeply tied to the Americas and 
their specific regions.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Don’t you think it is better if the Lord just reveals it to them?

I suppose that is why you believe the patriarchal blessing is for.

The 1991 Ensign magazine mentions a few things:

"The great majority of those who become members of the Church are literal descendants of 
Abraham through Ephraim"

"The set time is come for God to gather Israel, and for His work to commence upon the face 
of the whole earth, and the Elders who have arisen in this Church and Kingdom are actually 
of Israel".

The Religion 430-431 Student Manual teaches "It is Ephraim, today, who holds the priesthood. 
It is with Ephraim that the Lord has made covenant and has revealed the fulness of the 
everlasting gospel. It is Ephraim who is building temples and performing the ordinances in 
them for both the living and for the dead".

Why does this (the building of temples and their ordinances) rely on Ephraim in the LDS 
Church at the exclusion of the other tribes?

The same Ensign article mentions, "It is the house of Israel we are after, and we care not 
whether they come from the east, the west, the north, or the south; from China, Russia, 
England, California, North or South America, or some other locality".

This focus on only literal Israelites through Jacob and/or the other descendants of Abraham 
through his other wives is not in line with the Great Commission. Jesus instructed His 
disciples to "teach all nations," emphasizing a universal mission to spread the gospel to 
everyone, regardless of nationality or background.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1991/01/of-the-house-of-israel?lang=eng
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Reread this thread.  Start at the beginning.  God has set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people.  He’s doing it now.  And God is identifying who they are.

Scripture itself doesn't explicitly state that Ephraim leads the gathering of Israel. The idea that
Ephraim has a special role in gathering Israel comes from how Doctrine and Covenants 133:26-34 
is interpreted.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

The temple court also held ten bronze basins for washing the sacrifices (2 Chronicles 4:6), but the Sea, or the bronze laver, was only for the priests to wash in.”

It was for cleansing and purification.

Right.  No women, no Gentiles, and no proxy baptisms.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

But the Bible is filled with examples of people receiving revelation or other information or experiences that they are told to keep secret.  It’s a directive that comes from God, not from Freemasonry as you want to believe.

One of the key elements that Freemasons are expected to keep private are the rituals and ceremonies 
involved in initiation and advancement through the different degrees of Freemasonry. These rituals, 
which include symbolic acts, oaths, and handshakes, are meant to be kept confidential among members.

The secrecy associated with Freemasonry is not mandated by a single central authority or God but 
is instead rooted in the traditions, customs, and principles established by the various Masonic 
lodges and jurisdictions over time.

The fraternity is open to men of all religious faiths, but members must believe in a higher power 
or Supreme Being, often referred to as "The Great Architect of the Universe".

Yes The Bible has several examples of people receiving revelation or other information or experiences 
that they are told to keep secret for a time or permanently:  But this is done individually and 
not for the church as a whole.

2 Corinthians 12:4: Paul speaks of being caught up into Paradise and hearing inexpressible things, 
things no one is permitted to tell.

Revelation 10:4: John hears seven thunders and is about to write them down, but is told to seal 
up what the seven thunders have said and not write it down.

Matthew 17:9: After the Transfiguration, Jesus instructs Peter, James, and John not to tell anyone 
about the vision until after His resurrection.

Matthew 8:4: After healing a man with leprosy, Jesus tells him to tell no one, but to show himself 
to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded.

But this has nothing to do with the Great Commission or what the disciples did in the temple prior 
to its destruction around 70 A.D.

In case you don't know, the Five Points of Fellowship and other secret oaths and handshakes of the 
LDS faith have their origin in Freemasonry – not in any Old or New Testament scripture.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

But no, the “secrecy” is plainly biblical, and the symbolism goes back to the beginning.  And as I said before (in my post on January 25), there is ample evidence of these things from ancient Christian burials, ancient Christian art, and even in some Christian writings.  But I’m not going to discuss those other things on this board because it requires information about the temple that can’t be discussed here.

Would you violate any secret if you told me whether you have participated in the Second Anointing 
ordinance?
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Section 76 defines the wicked and rebellious (the “liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie”, verse 103) as those of the Telestial kingdom

Revelation 21:8 has them in the lake of fire, not freed to go into the Telestial kingdom. They 
are harmed by the second death as they were not in the first resurrection (Revelation 20:6).
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Under the law of Moses, yes.  Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are all about providing the details of the law.  That's when it was given and that's why it provides all those details.  But what about at Mount Sinai before Israel broke their covenants?

The Book of Mormon is full of temple symbolism and imagery.

Those details were not secret.

I didn't understand what point you are trying to make when you ask "But what about at Mount Sinai 
before Israel broke their covenants".

Would you provide a few examples which specifically identify objects in the Nephite temple?

All I see is a blanket statement in 2 Nephi 5:16, where Nephi mentions building a temple similar 
to the temple of Solomon, which would have included an altar for burnt offerings.  But by itself, 
the Book of Mormon doesn't explain what objects are used for.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Baptisms weren’t performed in temples until after the coming of Christ, and then it was baptism for the dead.

New Testament Christians did not baptize for the dead in the brazen sea. But you already know its 
purpose.

There is no baptism for the dead in the Book of Mormon either.  Apparently it was not important 
enough to mention for all those hundreds of years after Jesus is recorded to have appeared to the 
Nephites.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

As for ordinances, see one example from Mosiah 2:3 where the people went to the temple and “took of the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings according to the law of Moses”.

Prior to the atonement, the Israelites did this in Jerusalem.  When Christ provided the atonement, 
these sacrifices were not required of Christians. Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 give a fuller explanation. 
Christians no longer needed earthly high priests (as in the LDS Church) or Roman Catholic priests 
since Christ became their one and only high priest and mediator between God and man.

I see something similar in 3 Nephi 9:19-20. In these verses, Jesus teaches the Nephites that the 
focus is now on spiritual sacrifices—offering a "broken heart and a contrite spirit"—rather than 
the physical sacrifices practiced under the Law of Moses.

These qualify as the type of sacrifices offered by female members of the royal priesthood of 
believers (1 Peter 2:5).
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

That’s because the Jaredites predate the house of Israel and the institution of specific places for ordinances.

This was in my response to my statement that Ether's record of the Jaredites doesn't even mention 
the temple.

The 2021 General Conference sermon by President Nelson said, "Indeed, whenever the Lord has had 
a people on the earth who will obey His word, they have been commanded to build temples. In every 
age, the temple has underscored the precious truth that those who make covenants with God and keep 
them are children of the covenant".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2021/10/47nelson?lang=eng

There is no temple in every age, from the days of Adam, until the first one is built in Jerusalem.

There is no mention of temples in the Pearl of Great Price.

While the Book of Mormon mentions temples being built, there is zero archaeological evidence for 
them and there is no command by God to build them in the first place. But I can understand how 
Latter-day Saints like to use pictures of Mayan structures to represent the temple at Bountiful 
where Christ supposedly appeared to the Nephites.

There is no command to build temples in various places in the Old and New Testament.
 
It's true that the initial desire to build a temple in Jerusalem was expressed by King David 
himself. David wanted to create a permanent dwelling place for the Ark of the Covenant instead 
of a tent. In response, God conveyed through the prophet Nathan that David would not build the 
temple; rather, it would be his son Solomon who would do so. The language used does not reflect 
a direct command to King David to build it. In this context, God's directive is more about 
providing divine approval and setting the conditions under which the temple should be built (through 
Solomon, not David) rather than issuing a direct command.  

Following the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians, we find only Ezra 1:1:1-2; where Cyrus 
says, "The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged 
me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah".

We don't find a blanket command either in the Doctrine and Covenants. It primarily focuses on 
commands for two specific temples, like the Kirtland Temple (D&C 88:119) and the Nauvoo Temple 
(D&C 124:31). There isn't a single verse that explicitly commands the building of other temples.

The Nauvoo Temple sustained damage from a fire and a tornado between 1848 and 1850. However, there 
is no recorded command to rebuild it around 2002.

The next temple to be built was the St. George Temple in Utah. It was not built according to a 
commandment of God.

Another thing worth mentioning is that Christ tore the temple veil, allowing us to enter the Holy 
of Holies without the need of a sinful, earthly high priest.  We don't need to make sacred handshakes 
or utter sacred passphrases to enter.

The Latter-day Saints have reinstituted the veil in temple rituals.  All worthy members have to 
pass through the veil by answering a series of questions and providing hand gestures to a man 
behind it.  He supposedly represents the Lord. When all is successful, the member passes beyond 
the veil into the presence of the Lord.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

But that wasn’t the question.  The question was about the temple mentioned in Revelation 11:1-2, not Revelation 11:19.  

This is the question to you:  If the temple of Revelation 11:1-2 is in heaven (as you believed), then why would it make sense for John to need to “measure” those that worship therein?

The temple in Revelation 11:1-2 seems to be a future temple in Jerusalem.  The Gentiles will 
thread on the holy city for forty-two months.

The temple in Revelation 11:19 is in heaven.

"And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure 
the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without 
the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city 
shall they tread under foot forty and two months".

This is a future time when the two witnesses appear for a special ministry (Revelation 11:3-14).

"And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and 
threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. 

These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. 

And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: 
and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. 

These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power 
over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
 
And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless 
pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. 

And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom 
and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. 

And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days 
and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. 

And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts 
one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth. 

And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood 
upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. 

And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up 
to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them. 

And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the 
earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to 
the God of heaven. 

The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly".
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

How do you know who constructs the temples that are not in heaven that are implied in the book of Revelation?  

And as for the temple at Jerusalem, that one was destroyed in 70 AD.

If you can find one Nephite temple or any temple of Utah or Missouri in the Book of Revelation, 
then let me know.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Are you omniscient?  Or otherwise, how do you know this?

In response to my statement, "New Testament Christians never build a physical temple after the 
one in Jerusalem is destroyed".

After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, Christians did not build temples in 
the traditional sense, as the Jewish people had done for centuries. Instead, early Christians 
developed a different form of worship and community gathering. Christianity began to distinguish 
itself from Judaism, and with the belief that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the Temple's 
purpose, there was a theological shift that made the construction of temples unnecessary.

Early Christians gathered in house churches, often in private homes or secret locations, especially 
in the first few centuries when Christianity was still illegal in the Roman Empire. These house 
churches were simple, and their focus was on communal worship, prayer, and the reading of Christian 
scriptures, rather than on offering sacrifices as was done in the Jewish Temple.

The idea of a permanent, dedicated Christian place of worship began to evolve more clearly after 
Christianity was legalized under Constantine. This led to the construction of basilicas and large 
church buildings. These were not temples in the sense of Jewish worship, but places where Christians 
could gather, celebrate the Eucharist, and conduct other aspects of worship. 

I think I find only 3 temples mentioned in the Book of Mormon: the temple of Nephi (2 Nephi 5:16), 
Zarahemla (Mosiah 1:18), and Bountiful (3 Nephi 11). But it's unknown if the first two were destroyed 
around the time of Christ's death.

There is no specific mention of the Nephites building temples after Christ is said to have appeared 
to them.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Which are exactly the kinds of places they could have used to set apart a specific area within one or more of those locations and dedicated it for temple related ordinances.  The same kind of thing happened in the early days of the restored Church.

Early Christians often met and worshiped in homes during the New Testament times. This practice 
was common because dedicated church buildings as we know them today didn't exist yet. 

I wanted to clarify something I said about them (New Testament Christians) meeting in synagogues 
for worship. The Jews who had converted to Christ were kicked out of the synagogues. I don't 
believe those in Judaism would allow those, who they viewed as apostates, to use their facilities.

From what I read in the Book of Mormon, the Nephite Christians were still using their synagogues 
for worship (3 Nephi 18:32). Apparently those who were strict to the Mosaic Law were either all 
destroyed in the natural disasters or they tolerated the Christians by offering them their space.

What temple-specific ordinances do Latter-day Saints perform in their home where a temple is not 
available?
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, the concept of temple worship in early Christianity was transformed (and became more informed), focusing on Jesus Christ as the ultimate High Priest and His atoning sacrifice. 

See:  The Temple and Your Spiritual Foundation, By President Russell M. Nelson, October 2021 General Conference: 

I understand that view.  On the flip side, the veil is torn and the temple is no longer needed.  
No need for earthly LDS high priests either. See Hebrews chapters 9 and 10. That's why we don't 
build temples.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

It says what it says, and the Gentiles (“strangers”) will be involved in temple worship. The temple is not going away.

Israelites and Gentiles (both Christian and those who followed the Mosaic Law) went to the temple 
for worship prior to its destruction. In the context of the Old Testament temple practices, most 
of the ordinances and rituals, especially those within the temple itself, were carried out by the 
priesthood, specifically the Levites and Aaronic priests.

Several ordinances were performed for non-priesthood holders:

1] Certain situations required individuals to present offerings at the temple, which the priests 
would perform.

2] The washing with water, as part of the ceremonial cleansing processes, took place outside of 
the temple itself, usually at home or in designated areas within the community. However, for certain 
purification rites, especially those related to temple worship, specific cleansing facilities were 
used.  The exception was male priests who washed in the large brazen sea and other smaller lavers.

These washing ordinances, for non-priests, did not happen in the temple but elsewhere.

A] Mikvahs: This was a ritual bath used for purification purposes. In later Jewish tradition, 
mikvahs became standard for ritual purity.

B] There were pools and facilities near the temple where people could perform ritual washings 
before entering the temple grounds. The Pool of Siloam, for instance, is believed to have been 
used for this purpose during the time of the Second Temple.

C] Other forms of ritual washing could occur at home or in local community pools or sources of 
living water (natural flowing water), depending on the requirements of the specific law or 
tradition they were observing.

The requirement for ritual washings and sacrificial offerings (animals, crops) ceased for 
Christians with the Atonement.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

In John’s revelation, Jesus talked about the temple and the importance of it in the future of Christianity, saying that the good and faithful members of Christ’s church would become “pillar[s] in the temple of my God”.  That has to happen in a temple somewhere, and it’s not the one in heaven.

"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: 
and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new 
Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name" 
(Revelation 3:12).

There is some commentary about that verse which indicates this temple is symbolic of the Body of 
Christ, the Church.

Overcoming Christians will be placed in the position of pillars in the temple is the same as saying 
that these Christians will occupy sure, secure, firmly established positions of strength and power, 
positions which will be realized when they rule and reign as co-heirs with Christ in the [millennial] 
kingdom." [Note: Chitwood, p. 101. Cf. Overstreet, pp. 453-55.]

The faithful Christian will be a pillar in the Temple of God. A pillar of the Church is a great 
and honoured support. Peter and James and John were the pillars of the early church in Jerusalem 
( Galatians 2:9) and perhaps 1 Timothy 3:15. All Christians are living-stones in the Temple 
(Ephesians 2:20 , 1 Peter 2:5), - CBSC

The temple was the dwelling place of God. Paul refers to believers, both individually and corporately, 
as the temple of God (1 Corinthians 3:16-17). The language here describes the believer's permanent 
residence in the abode and presence of God. - FSB

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/revelation/3-12.html
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Then it says in 3 Nephi 16, verse 1: “And verily, verily, I say unto you that I have other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to minister.”

Here Jesus tells the Nephites that he has other sheep which aren’t in any of the areas where Jesus visited during his mortal ministry prior to his resurrection

I see your point.

The phrase "whither I have been to minister" would be clearer if it said "whither I will go to 
minister".

Verse 3 mentions them becoming one sheepfold with Christ as the shepherd.

John 10:16,28 says, "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 … And I give unto 
them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand".

In LDS theology, if people are not sheep (with eternal life; which is exaltation), would that 
make them goats?
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Ok, so you don’t believe that God had any further dealings with the scattered tribes of Israel after they were scattered, and the prophets they had among them just died off and were forgotten?  Do you believe God just forgot about those tribes or ignored them for a period of time?   That’s an honest question.

Scripture is quiet between the time of Malachi and the advent of John the Baptist, so I cannot 
elaborate further.  God didn't forget the scattered tribes. I believe they had still some form 
of scripture.  Some were looking for the Messiah to come. Simeon and Anna the prophetess are 
specifically mentioned.  Scripture is more focused on the remaining tribes that were still living 
in the land of Israel.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

The prophet Amos (who lived and prophesied prior to the scattering of the northern tribes) wrote: 

“Hear this word that the Lord hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”  (Amos 3:1–2)

The prophet Amos had “the whole family” of Israel in mind when he wrote those words, so that included all the tribes of Israel.  And the Book of Mormon teaches that God raised up prophets to these other tribes when they went into the other nations and had their own scripture (2 Nephi 29:7-12, Mosiah 3:13).  Why do you believe and teach that God forgot these people and had nothing more to say to them?

God had not forgotten them.  But I have no record of God visiting these other tribes other than 
what some believe are true events written in the Book of Mormon.  

I see the "other sheep" as the Gentiles but you see it as other Israelites.  Quite possibly, part 
of this punishment was God not actively sending prophets to them until the advent of John the 
Baptist.

That's why I pointed out earlier that the Book of Mormon doesn't specifically mention Gentiles as 
a people the Nephites encounter. They only meet Coriantumr.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Wait a minute. Given that Romans 9:7-9 and Galatians 4:28-31 state those who come to Christ become the seed of Abraham and are counted as “the children of the promise”, where do you make a distinction (biblically speaking) in what those promises entail? Show from scripture where Abraham’s “seed” means only the literal seed for receiving the land promises.

I see the reference to the meek (all nationalities) inheriting the earth (in general; the children 
of the promise - Matthew 5:5) and the literal Israelites inheriting a more specific land of 
inheritance (Genesis 13:14-15; 15:18; 17:8; 24:7; 28:4,13; 35:12; Exodus 13:11; 32:13; 33:1; 
Leviticus 25:38; 26:42; Numbers 13:2; Joshua 14; Ezekiel 11:17; 20:40,42; 28:25;36:24,28; 47:13-14; 
48:7-29 – there are many more).

When I turn to the Doctrine and Covenants, it says Missouri (the land of Zion) is the inheritance 
of the faithful Latter-day Saints (D&C 57:14, 63:29,36; 64:30,35; 69:8: 90:30; 101:70).  There is 
no mention of specific lineages or that all of America is Zion.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

I don’t find anything in the verses that you list or in Genesis 12:7, 13:14-15, 17, 15:7, 18-21, and 17:8 saying that the land promises made to Abraham are limited to his literal descendants, do you?

The land inheritance mentioned in the scriptures I provide do not specifically include those who 
would later become the spiritual seed of Abraham (those who accept Christ as Savior - Romans 9:7-9 
and Galatians 4:28-31).

You're mixing the blessings upon the Church with the blessings upon Israel into one pile. God still 
has outstanding promises to fulfil with literal Israel (Abraham's seed through Isaac).  Some overlap 
with the Church, some don't.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

The “possibly” is a conservative estimate of the time between the first Nephite landing and the time when Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Mulek, as recorded in the book of Omni, which covers a period of time from 323 to 130 B.C.

According to the Book of Mormon, no Jaredite but him was ever discovered by the Nephites during 
all their travels.  They met no one else.  That would be like the Book of Exodus mentioning that 
the Jews never encountered any group of people as they made their way out of Egypt to the Jordan 
River.

Even with the writings of LDS leaders, they only mention interacting with Lamanites (who they once 
taught were the principal ancestors of the Native American Indians) but they never say anything 
about meeting descendants of the Jaredite civilization.  Why?  Because that ended with the death 
of Coriantumr.

The Jaredites, the greatest nation of any people on earth (Ether 1:43), is only known in the Book 
of Mormon while the archaeological evidence for the existence of them is not recognized by 
mainstream science.  

Also, the idea that "reformed Egyptian" was used by Native American cultures is not supported by 
mainstream historical or linguistic evidence.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

I think you are trying to stretch a connection between 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 and 19 because of modern Christian pop culture (movies and books and internet theories) regarding the so-called “antichrist”, for which many popular theories claim that the “man of sin” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is the same person as the “beast” of Revelation 13.

...

So, for both the apostasy and “man of sin”, there is no reason to assume that either of these are some kind of future event, and there’s no reason to stretch and strain to try to make 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 and 19 depict the same events.  Paul clearly says that the man of lawlessness was already at work during his day (in verse 7) and for the apostasy he said it would begin “after my departing” (Acts 20:28-31).  Thus, these are both past events.

As you can see, I take a more literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation, as trying to fit 
it into a purely symbolic or metaphorical context doesn't quite add up.  I'll speak more of this 
when I get to the topic of the "ten toes".

In Revelation 19, who is the beast and false prophet that Christ casts into the lake of fire at 
the Second Coming?  Do you believe they are actual individuals that will be recognizable on the 
world stage deceiving humans?

When did the events of the false prophet performing miracles before the beast and deceiving those 
who received the mark of the beast and people worshipping the image of the beast occur in the past?  
I am not aware of any significant past historical event which biblically satisfies this.

Revelation 13:11-14 says, "And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two 
horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.  And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast 
before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose 
deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven 
on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those 
miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the 
earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live".

I am not aware of any significant past historical event which biblically satisfies this.

2 Thessalonians 2:8-10 says, "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume 
with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose 
coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all 
deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the 
truth, that they might be saved".

I am not aware of any significant past historical event which biblically satisfies this. 

Some of the LDS Church's views on the beast and the false prophet are presented in the Religion 
211-212 – New Testament – Study Manual (2018).  They are quite unique to say the least.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-student-manual/revelation/chapter-55-revelation-12-16?lang=eng

The first beast is not identified as one individual.

The Joseph Smith Translation indicates that the beast is "in the likeness of the kingdoms of the 
earth" (in Revelation 13:1, footnote a). The beast's many heads, crowns, and horns suggest many 
different kingdoms and rulers with great power.

The second beast is also not identified as one individual.

Revelation 13:11 tells of a second beast that John saw; he later identified this beast as "the 
false prophet" (Revelation 19:20). This second beast "had two horns like a lamb" but "spake as a 
dragon" (Revelation 13:11). This description suggests that the second beast will seek to appear 
to represent Christ while actually teaching the false doctrines of Satan. The description of the 
second beast is also reminiscent of the Savior's warning to "beware of false prophets, which come 
to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matthew 7:15).

It speaks of the war with the saints but it doesn't mention that this power was given unto the 
beast for forty-two months.  This specific beast is not indicated as making a specific war campaign 
with the saints prior to this time.

Revelation 13:7. "War with the Saints"

John recorded that it was given to the beast from the sea to "make war with the saints, and to 
overcome them" (Revelation 13:7). Though the intended meaning of much of the symbolism in Revelation 
13 is uncertain, one message seems clear: Satan and those who uphold his work will be at war 
against the Saints of God (see also 1 Nephi 14:12–14).

They get a little bit closer with the mark of the beast, but they don't mention anything about 
the second beast making an image of the first beast and causing people to worship it. This image 
is just as literal as the one King Nebuchadnezzar erected to have worshipped (Daniel 3:1-5). 

Revelation 13:16–17. The Mark of the Beast

In contrast to the righteous, who keep their covenants with God and receive His protecting seal 
on their foreheads (see Revelation 7:2–3; 14:1; 22:4; the commentary for Revelation 7:3; 9:4), 
the wicked who worship the beast "receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads" 
(Revelation 13:16). This may symbolize that the wicked show by their actions (hands) and beliefs 
(heads) that they do the will of the beast and accept his ideology. However, the precise meaning 
of "the mark" has not been revealed.

The three angels of Revelation 14: 6-12 become many heavenly hosts in the LDS interpretation.

John saw three angels, each proclaiming a message to the earth's inhabitants. The first angel 
brought "the everlasting gospel" to the nations of the earth (Revelation 14:6). Many latter-day 
prophets have taught that the angel represents Moroni (see D&C 27:5; 133:36–39). The angel may 
also represent a composite of the many heavenly messengers, including Moroni, who have assisted 
in the latter-day Restoration of the gospel. Elder Bruce R. McConkie pointed out: "The angel 
Moroni brought the message, that is, the word; but other angels brought the keys and priesthood, 
the power" (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:530).

This next part is more in line with my thinking.

The third angel described the judgments to come upon those who worship the beast and receive his 
mark (see Revelation 14:9). They will receive God's punishing anger, described as drinking "the 
wrath of God … without mixture," or without dilution (Revelation 14:10). Other scriptures teach 
that God's wrath is poured out only when all other efforts fail to persuade men to repent.

In chapter 19, it omits mention of the beast and the false prophet (which I believe are individuals) 
being cast alive into the lake of fire.  Kingdoms and/or cities are not cast alive into the lake 
of fire.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-student-manual/revelation/chapter-56-revelation-17-22?lang=eng

"And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with 
which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. 
These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone".

This literal view is more logical than how the LDS Church is interpreting it.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

“So if you believe 2 Thes 2 is referring to the beast mentioned in Revelation 19:19-20, then how is it that this beast began his work at the time of Paul (i.e. ‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work’)?  Is the beast a man, or something else that can live from the time of Paul until the coming of Christ?”

I see there being an unholy trinity of Satan (the Devil), the beast, and the false prophet.  The 
beast and the false prophet are men.  They are both cast alive into the lake of fire at the Second 
Coming (Revelation 19:20). Satan is bound for a thousand years in the pit after this event 
(Revelation 20:1-3).

Maybe the Latter-day Saints view the Devil, the beast, and the false prophet in Revelation 19 
and 20 as encompassing the statue in Daniel's vision – depicting only kingdoms in opposition to 
God instead of specific individuals.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

This made the governing state the enforcer of the doctrines of the church that remained.  Is that the same church that you believe has never gone into apostasy?

There was some apostasy in the church as Paul mentioned.  Some apostasy is also mentioned in one 
of the seven churches in the Book of Revelation. But I don't believe the church was destroyed like 
the 1997 Gospel Principles teaches.

Christ loves, nourishes, and cherishes his bride (Ephesians 5:25-32). He does not allow her to be 
destroyed.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

As for your red herring above, CFR for where Joseph Smith “taught that the ten toes is the government of the United States”.

If you are thinking about Joseph Smith’s conversation with Robert Matthews in November 1835 (also known under the heading of “False Doctrines of Joshua the Jewish Minister” in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith), that’s part of a scribal summary of a long conversation between Joseph Smith and Robert Matthews, who was also known by the name Matthias and disguised himself initially in Kirtland by calling himself Joshua, the Jewish prophet.

The statement in the conversation where it says “The feet of the image are the government of these United States” is a quote from Robert Matthews (aka:  Joshua the Jewish Minister), not Joseph Smith.  And at the end of the conversation, Joseph Smith said: “I told him that his doctrine was of the devil, that he was in reality in possession of a wicked and depraved spirit”.   See Joseph Smith Papers - Conversations with Robert Matthews, 9–11 November 1835, and take note where the manuscript says “After dinner the conversation was resumed and Joshua proceeded to make some remarks on the prophesies, as follows:”, and the comment about Daniel’s prophecy is in the portion of Joshua’s remarks.

Yes. The following was the CFR for me saying Joseph Smith taught the ten toes are the government 
of the United States.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-b-1-1-september-1834-2-november-1838/92#full-transcript

Thank you for that clarification with the link you provided.  I see the record of Joseph saying 
to Matthews "I told him that his doctrine was of the Devil" later in my above link, to which you 
provided another link below.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/conversations-with-robert-matthews-9-11-november-1835/6#historical-intro
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Now that we’ve dispensed with the red herring, what about Daniel 2:44?  How do you explain that?  Clearly the kingdom of God as described in Daniel 2 could not have been established at the time of the mortal ministry of Jesus, since his ministry was during the height of the Roman Empire (not the kingdoms of the iron and clay).

A seminary manual teaches the ten toes are a group of European nations.

e. The feet of iron and clay represented a group of European nations. (In Conference Report, Apr. 
1976, 10; or Ensign, May 1976, 8.)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-46?lang=eng

I believe the ten toes are the ten kings of Revelation 17:12.

Another seminary manual teaches that the stone cut out of the mountains represents the LDS Church.

What does the stone cut out of the mountain without hands represent? (Explain that in this verse 
the phrase "kingdom of God" refers to the kingdom of God on the earth—The Church of Jesus Christ 
of Latter-day Saints.)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-46?lang=eng

A few other teachings:

President Spencer W. Kimball further clarified the prophecy with the following explanation: 
"Rome would be replaced by a group of nations of Europe represented by the toes of the image. 

"With the history of the world delineated in brief, now came the real revelation. Daniel said: 

"‘And in the days of these kings [that is, the group of European nations] shall the God of heaven 
set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed . . .

"This is a revelation concerning the history of the world, when one world power would supersede 
another until there would be numerous smaller kingdoms to share the control of the earth".

The ten horns are the kingdoms into which the Roman Empire was afterwards divided. They are similar 
to the ten toes of the great image described in Daniel 2. (See also Daniel 7:23–24.)

The little horn represented a notable anti-Christ power that was to be raised up after the time 
of the Roman Empire, and it was to be different from the other ten kingdoms mentioned after the 
Roman kingdom. Daniel said that this horn would have power to make war with and hinder the Saints 
until the time of Christ's Second Coming (see Daniel 7:20–27).

This image is smashed at the Second Coming, not in 1830 and not by the growth of the LDS Church.   
The little horn is yet future.  I believe this person will be the beast of Revelation 13 and 19). 
 
The way it sounds from the LDS perspective of the "little horn" is that it is not a person but 
rather another kingdom that follows the other ten kingdoms/toes (which are now referred to as the 
many nations that the Roman Empire divided into – maybe not necessarily only the European nations 
or are they?).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-kings-malachi/chapter-28?lang=eng

Behind the kingdoms represented by Daniel's statue, there was a leader.

The head of Gold (Babylon)
The chest and arms of silver (the Mede-Persian monarchy)
The brazen belly and thighs (the Greco-Macedonian empire)
The legs of iron (Rome)
The last kingdom (which I believe is the EU). Not sure who this leader is or will be. Possibly 
the little horn.

One thing that the kingdoms had in common is that they exerted control over the land of Israel.  
I believe this last kingdom, made up of ten kings with one leader, will control the land of Israel 
in some form in the future before Christ comes and destroys it and its leader.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

I don’t believe it’s an exact date range; it is simply a long period of time.

Does 1,260 days of the KJV and Greek Interlinear mean the same as 1,260 years in the JST of 
Revelation 12:5 then?
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

But Revelation chapter 12 teaches that the woman (the church) would flee into the wilderness for a period of time, and therefore it wouldn’t be among men on earth during that time.  This is a reference to the time of apostasy of the church that was among men on earth during that time.

A few questions come to mind.

"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth 
the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him" (Revelation 
12:9).

"And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought 
forth the man child" (Revelation 12:13.

"And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, 
into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of 
the serpent" (Revelation 12:14).

"And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her 
to be carried away of the flood" (Revelation 12:15).

When was the dragon cast unto the earth?  

What is the time gap between verses 9,13 and verses 14-15?

Who is the man child that the woman [the church according to Joseph Smith] brought forth?

How was the church nourished and by whom for a long period of time that you say?

"And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which 
the dragon cast out of his mouth. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war 
with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus 
Christ" (Revelation 12:16-17).

Where is the dragon warring with the remnant? In the wilderness period or outside?

When did the dragon start warring with this remnant?
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

I brought up the measuring of the temple, you commented on it, but you have not answered the question I asked you about why John needed to measure the people attending the temple if it is a temple in heaven (see above).

I commented already about there being two temples.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

As for the time frame and setting, it is likely a future time when there is another “abomination of desolation” attempt on the temple, but the temple will not be desolated.

Who makes that "another" abomination of desolation attempt?  The individual known as the beast?  
The leader of the last kingdom?
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

The problem is that Paul isn’t speaking about “those” who are alive and remain at the coming of the Lord, he says “WE which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord”.  He preaches that he and those around him will be alive and remain until the Lord returns. 

As for readiness, pretty much all the prophets of God and apostles of Jesus Christ emphasized readiness, but how many of them included themselves and their listeners as being alive when Christ returns like Paul did?

They were hopeful that Christ could return in their days so they were told to be ready.

"We" does not necessarily have to include only those living in Paul's day.   The same message is 
for us today.  We can preach the same that Paul was preaching even if we who are live today don't 
live to see the return of Christ. The "we" means those who are living at the time of the Second 
Coming.

If you apply the same logic to the Great Commission, then it was only given to the Apostles for 
their time.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

As for the apostasy, you just said it was future, but you haven’t addressed how that’s possible given that Paul taught that “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work” beginning during his time.

Yes. Leaven was already making itself into the church.  It was present in Paul's time and continued 
to our present age.  It will continue until Christ returns.  But I see the great apostasy occurring 
in the future with the worship of the beast.  Those who do so will be punished with severe plagues.

You cannot have a total apostasy when Joseph Smith woman [the church] of Revelation 12 is being 
protected and nourished in the wilderness.

The church of Philadelphia (Revelation 3) is just one example of a church that was not destroyed 
("I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou 
hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name").
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Skipping your unrelated diversion attempt and getting back to the language of Isaiah 44:6 (which is what I was talking about): Do you believe there is no other city other than Babylon, since Isaiah 44:6 uses the same language as these verses?

Isaiah 44:6 says “Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

Isaiah 47:8 “Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children”

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

Do you believe Babylon is the one and only city and there is none else besides Babylon, using the same logic you do for Isaiah 44:6?

The context for Isaiah 47:8 and Zephaniah 2:15 are different from Isaiah 44:6.  

"For thou [Babylon] hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and 
thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else 
beside me" (Isaiah 47:10).

Isaiah 44:6 makes no sense in LDS theology since Heavenly Father is not the first God and he won't 
be the last God.  There are countless Gods before him and countless Gods to be formed after him.  
He is not even the first and the last when you take Earth by itself.  You have Jesus, his brother 
(the Holy Ghost), and Heavenly Mother (who became a God before Jesus became a God). 

I am not even sure who in LDS theology becomes another associated God for Earth next: Jesus or 
the Holy Spirit. Doctrine and Covenants 132:29,37 even names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as 
additional Gods associated with Earth.   

That "I am, and none else beside me" is not saying that there is no other city besides Nineveh 
or Babylon.  It's a metaphorical way of Nineveh and Babylonia considering themselves great cities, 
greater than all others.

This reminds me of the movie, Snow White.

The kind queen got her wish when she gave birth to a baby girl who had skin white as snow, lips 
red as blood, and hair black as ebony.  They named the baby princess Snow White, but sadly, the 
queen died after giving birth to Snow White.

Soon after, the king married a new woman who was beautiful, but proud and cruel.  She had studied 
dark magic and owned a magic mirror, of which she would daily ask, 

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?
Each time this question was asked, the mirror would give the same answer, 
"Thou, O Queen, art the fairest of all."  This pleased the queen greatly as she believed that her 
magical mirror could speak nothing but the truth.

But help me to understand you – what do you believe "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" (Isaiah 43:10) means?
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

You didn’t answer the question.  The question was:

Why do you suppose that the majority of Christians prior to the invention of the doctrine of creation out of nothing and prior to the first council of Nicaea (when Constantine added the word “homoousious” to the creed) believed and widely taught that God is the God over other gods, and that men become gods?

Men becoming Gods and being worshipped by their own spirit children is not in scripture but I 
understand exaltation and eternal increase is at the core of LDS theology  ("All good things come 
from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like him—a god").
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

As for the word homoousious, it has already been documented that the Roman Emperor Constantine is the person who insisted that the word be inserted into the creed.  Prior to the First Council of Nicaea, the Gnostics were the first theologians to use the word homoousious (or at least before the Gnostics there is no trace at all of its existence).  Basilides seems to be the first Gnostic to use the word.  Athanasius was simply giving support to what the Emperor Constantine had inserted into the creed.

Homoousious has been interpreted in various ways like the terms "firstborn" and "salvation".
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

From Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual:  Chapter 4, Jesus Christ, the Son of God:

“As far as man is concerned, all things center in Christ. He is the Firstborn of the Father. By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state. As such he became, under the Father, the Creator of this earth and of worlds without number”.

Compare the above to what the early Christian Father Origen (185-254 AD) taught about Jesus Christ, the Son of God:

“And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.” (See Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, paragraph 2).

Now here is my question:   Doesn’t the quote from the Doctrines of the Gospel Student manual sound very much like what the early Christian Father Origen taught in the quote above?   How do you explain that?

Is the question clear to you now? 

What he said seems to align with what the seminary manual mentions, but that doesn't necessarily 
mean what Origen taught is true, nor does it imply that all Christians accepted it.

Do you believe Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were formed into Gods?
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Joseph Smith taught and what the revelations teach is that Heavenly Father [the God of all worlds, which are without number] is the one Eternal God of all other gods (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32), and when we learn how to be Gods ourselves (through God’s plan as provided in the scripture), we become “kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before” us.  We are always subject to the one God and Father who is above all others.  And He isn’t made a king and a priest unto anyone else, since he is the one God who is “above all” (Ephesians 4:6).

You are doing this on purpose.  Focus on what has been said previously and progress the discussion instead of spinning around and around.  Do you really not have anything else to say?

I'm just trying to figure out if you believe Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother of our Earth 
were made priests/priestesses and kings/queens by the God above them and if Heavenly Father is 
above all beings who were formed into Gods long before he became God.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

And that’s the very reason the early Christians WIDELY taught that men become gods, because they received that teaching from Jesus and the apostles.

I don't see any scripture which specifically shows Jesus and the Apostles using the words "man 
can become Gods" but I'm aware the LDS Church teaches that those led by the Spirit / the sons 
of God / the joint-heirs with Christ (of Romans 8:14-17) are exalted beings.

I don't see the teaching of men becoming Gods in the Book of Mormon either.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

And the reason you don’t find it to be biblical is because you base your beliefs on the tradition handed down after the Father and Son were made to be “homoousious” by the Emperor Constantine, which is in itself unbiblical.  But that shapes your thinking and your rejection of or reinterpretation of all the biblical teachings that the early Christians understood to be teaching of the existence of other gods and that men become gods and that Jesus is the “second God”.

Why do you think the earliest Christians taught that men become gods but later they did not?

Teaching something external to the scripture does not necessarily mean it is true.

In early Christianity, there were several individuals and their adherents whose teachings were 
later deemed heretical by the mainstream church. Here are a few notable ones:

Marcion of Sinope: he taught that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God of the 
New Testament and rejected the Old Testament entirely. He created his own canon of scripture, 
which excluded all the Jewish scriptures.

Arius: he was a priest whose teachings about the nature of Christ led to the Arian controversy. 
Arius argued that Jesus Christ was a created being and not co-eternal with the Father, which led 
to the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

Nestorius: he taught distinctive ideas about the nature of Christ, suggesting a separation 
between Christ's divine and human natures. This led to the Nestorian controversy.

Pelagius: he taught that original sin did not taint human nature and that humans could choose 
God without divine aid. This led to the Pelagian controversy regarding grace and free will.

Valentinus: he was a prominent Gnostic teacher who offered a complex system blending Christianity 
with Gnostic cosmology.

Mani: Founder of Manichaeism, Mani merged elements of Christianity with Zoroastrian and Buddhist 
beliefs, proposing a dualistic view of the world.

Donatus: His teachings led to the Donatist controversy, which argued that the validity of sacraments 
depended on the moral character of the clergy who administered them.

Sabellius: He was associated with Modalism or Sabellianism, a belief that God is one person who 
manifests in three forms - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - rather than as three distinct persons.

Theodotus of Byzantium and Paul of Samosata (notable leaders of Adoptionism):  taught that Jesus 
was a mere man who was "adopted" by God at his baptism or resurrection, becoming the Son of God 
through divine adoption. This view denied the pre-existence of Christ and His eternal divinity, 
seeing him as a human being elevated to divinity.

These teachings reflect some of the diverse beliefs that emerged as early Christians sought to 
understand and define their faith. Over time, church councils and leaders formally declared many 
of these teachings heretical.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

But it is:

3 Nephi 28:10: "And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one".

Alright.  Since you believe attaining the fulness of joy means exaltation (becoming a God), let's 
go down that path.

Here's what the 1997 Gospel Principles says about attaining the fulness of joy.

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf

"If we passed our tests, we would receive the fulness of joy that our heavenly parents have received".

"At the Grand Council we also learned the purpose for our progression: to have a fulness of joy. 
However, we also learned that not all of our Father's children would want to receive a fulness of 
joy. Some of us would be deceived, choose other paths, and lose our way".

"We learned that if we placed our faith in him, obeying his word and following his example, we 
would be exalted and become like our heavenly parents. We would receive a fulness of joy".

"We can be exalted as God is and receive a fulness of joy".

"Blessings of Exaltation:  They will become gods. They will receive a fulness of joy".

Here's another:

"A fullness of joy is found only within the framework of an exalted family. Some people may scoff 
at the seventh commandment, which requires chastity before marriage and fidelity afterward, but 
"political correctness" is not a substitute for the plan of happiness".

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/merrill-j-bateman/eternal-family

In summary, the LDS Heavenly Mother and Father became Gods. They attained their fulness of joy. 
They were not eternally Gods.  Since the LDS Jesus was given a fulness of joy, he too became a 
God.  He was not eternally God.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

You clearly don’t understand LDS theology, nor do you engage any of my corrections to your misrepresentations of LDS theology.  You are obviously trying to do this on purpose.

I beg to differ. I am not doing this on purpose.

Regarding your list of attributes of God the Father:

1.    He is an eternal being (he has always existed)
2.    He has all power
3.    He has all glory
4.    He is all knowing
5.    He is perfect
6.    He rules over all other beings
But none of us have all power, all glory, are all knowing, are perfect, nor do we rule over all other beings.

Regarding #1, LDS theology identifies you and me as eternal beings. We have always existed.  But 
we are not eternally Gods.  A God will exist only when a being becomes a God.  God the Father is 
not God before he is born to the Father of God the Father.  After his spirit birth, he progresses 
into becoming a God. The same thing happens for Heavenly Mother, unless God the Father (and not 
the Father of God the Father) created her on another world, married her, and then formed her into 
a Goddess.

Being eternal and then becoming God is not the same thing as that person always being the eternal 
God because one attribute is the same while the other (the nature) is only achieved through 
progression from a non-god to God.

LDS President John Taylor taught, "What is [man]? He had his being in the eternal worlds; he existed 
before he came here. He is not only the son of man, but he is the son of God also. He is a God in 
embryo".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-john-taylor/chapter-1?lang=eng

Neither is that person (a God-in embryo) classified as the eternal God-in-embryo because that  
God-in-embryo is not a God-in-embryo before being born to heavenly parents - unless you believe 
all intelligences (spiritually born or not) are already Gods-in-embryo.

Let me give you another example.  Saying that Jack existed eternally and then became a plumber 
does NOT equal Jack eternally existed as a plumber.

Your statement about none of us having attributes of God refers to the present tense.  This does 
not take account of what happens in the future according to what I read in Gospel Principles.

"They will have [future tense] everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all 
power, glory, dominion, and knowledge".

Points #2/3/4/5 applies to all exalted children of the LDS Heavenly Father according to Gospel 
Principles (i.e. the blessings of exaltation).

Let's look at #6 now.

Will exalted Latter-day Saints rule over all of their future spirit children?  Yes.  How do we 
know?  It's on page 302 of the 1997 Gospel Principles.

3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children 
also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. 
They will be an eternal family.

The key phrase is "the same relationship".  In the future, as exalted beings, they will rule over 
their own spirit children and their own spirit children will worship them.  But in their non-exalted 
state currently, Latter-day Saints do not have the same relationship with the Father of God the 
Father.

For example, you worship God the Father.  But you don't worship the Father of God the Father, right?   
Why not?  Because he is not your God.

Then there's your interpretation of Revelation 3:9.  You believe members of the church of Philadelphia 
(who become Gods) will be worshipped by those of the synagogue of Satan.  Those of the synagogue of 
Satan are not even spirit children of the Philadelphians.

Joseph Smith said "In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who 
mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being 
of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have 
imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away 
the veil, so that you may see" (History of the Church, volume 6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph 
Smith, 1938).

https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf

His theology seems clear to me.  

I think you said in previous replies that God the Father has always been God and he also "becomes 
God" in the sense that we are born to him as spirit children before coming to Earth, but this is 
not the meaning of Joseph Smith's words.  I'll say more about this when I discuss "ladders".

Joseph Smith also said, "If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John 
discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father 
also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without 
first being a son?  Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? 
And everything comes in this way".

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/109#historical-intro

His theology seems clear to me.

Maybe you see that as a true teaching but can't comprehend it or you reject it as a false teaching.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Colossians 1:16 says nothing about angels (no surprise there).

In John 1:3 it says of Jesus, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

In other words, Jesus didn’t create things (or beings) that were not made.  Jesus did not create God the Father, for example, nor does it say he created the beings who are coeternal with God that were later given the job description of angels.

Colossians 1:16 says, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him”.

God the Father and the beings who are coeternal with God the Father are not “things”, nor were they created, and Colossians 1:16 doesn’t say that Jesus created them.

As for the “principalities, or powers” mentioned in Colossians 1:16, those are the governmental organizations (whether they be in heaven or on earth) that Jesus organized.  This is what Paul had in mind when he wrote to Titus, “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work.” (Titus 3:1)

It sounds like you believe Jesus is not a creator because he created no creatures. If all beings 
are eternal, then God the Father doesn't create any beings either.

From what I've been able to gather, the LDS specifics of how spirits are created in the premortal 
life are not fully revealed. The church teaches that we are spirit children of Heavenly Parents, 
but the process of spiritual creation isn't detailed in scripture or official doctrine. 

I'm surprised that you don't understand the real meaning of John 1:3. It means there are no beings 
created without Christ being their creator. Thus, all beings are created through Christ.  But I 
can grasp your perspective if you believe that beings are eternal and uncreated.

Did seraphim and cherubim always exist, even before a man became a God and then heavenly father 
of Earth, or did they evolve from lower life forms?
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Right, because there is no such thing as the nature of angels apart from the nature of those individuals (spirits of men, mortal men, resurrected men) who are called to be angels (messengers of God).  It’s just a job description. So why try to make something up about “the nature of angels” when there is nothing to support it in the Bible?  Honestly, where do you think that belief came from?

Here are a few examples where wings for some creatures are depicted as the means of their flying.

Revelation 14:6 – "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting 
gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, 
and people".

Isaiah 6:2 reveals a winged creature, a seraphim (not an angel), flying. "Above it stood the 
seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his 
feet, and with twain he did fly".

Daniel 9:21 reveals the angel Gabriel flying. "Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man 
Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me 
about the time of the evening oblation".

So, do angels (defined as a type of creature) have wings?  Yes.

I don't know even know why Joseph Smith taught that one way to detect a bad angel was by the color 
of its hair. 

"There have also been ministering angels in the Church which were of Satan appearing as an angel 
of light. A sister in the state of New York had a vision, who said it was told her that if she 
would go to a certain place in the woods, an angel would appear to her. She went at the appointed 
time, and saw a glorious personage descending, arrayed in white, with sandy colored hair; he 
commenced and told her to fear God, and said that her husband was called to do great things, but 
that he must not go more than one hundred miles from home, or he would not return; whereas God 
had called him to go to the ends of the earth, and he has since been more than one thousand miles 
from home, and is yet alive. Many true things were spoken by this personage, and many things that 
were false. How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By the color of his hair; that 
is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation".

https://ia800507.us.archive.org/8/items/HistoryOfTheChurchhcVolumes1-7original1902EditionPdf/hoc.pdf
https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-book/history-of-the-church-volume-4/volume-4-chapter-33

It seems like all sandy-colored angels in heaven end up being the bad ones.

Let's see if the church comes out with another revelation, this time identifying an additional 
hair color to spot a bad angel.

You said angels are not a type of creature but a job description, a role, like messenger.  Using 
that reasoning, then I propose that seraphim and cherubim are messengers (angels) of God with 
specific roles. 

One example is seen in Genesis 3:24, where cherubim are placed at the east of the Garden of Eden 
to guard the way to the tree of life. Another is Isaiah 6:1-7, which gives a vivid description 
of seraphim with six wings, attending to God and proclaiming His holiness. Isaiah's vision shows 
them as worshippers and messengers in God's presence.

So, do some angels (defined as a job description or role) have wings?  Yes.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Remember, you were the one who told me about how the pagans would understand the Greek word génos when Paul was speaking to them.  In your post on January 2, you said:

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

So why don’t you tell me what they believed about a heavenly mother since you were the one who said they would understand it that way?

Do you think Paul was trying to deceive his pagan audience?  Several people converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ after Paul gave that speech (“certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them” - Acts 17:34).  Did these people believe what Paul taught them based on a lie?

I don't believe Paul was inferring a literal and physical (i.e. spiritual) birth with the 
assistance of a heavenly mother. Supposedly all spirit is matter, but more fine and pure than 
material matter (D&C 131:7-8).

Which of the pagan audience believed in a heavenly mother?
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Again, what’s the issue here?  You are just repeating yourself and not explaining why those things are mutually exclusive.  It’s not picking and choosing anything if nothing is incompatible with the views, they go together. There is a progression to what Paul taught, and a progression to what Joseph Smith taught, and they are completely compatible with each other. 

The apostle Paul taught that becoming an heir of God requires that we be led by the Spirit of God.  What if a person starts out being led by the Spirit of God but then abandons that path?  Are they still an heir of God?  Paul explains that as he continues, “if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him”.  That is clearly a conditional statement.  What if we don’t “suffer with him” by enduring to the end?  Are we still heirs of God?  Of course not.

And what exactly does it mean to be an “heir” of God?  An “heir” is a person inheriting and continuing the legacy of a predecessor. Those who are led by the spirit of God become the sons of God and are adopted and are heirs of God, joint-heirs with Jesus Christ.  So, what does an “heir of God” inherit?  That is exactly what Joseph Smith explained.  He said it means: “To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before.”

An heir is an exalted being in that theology you stated above.

That was my point.    

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds 
of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of 
God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit 
of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that 
we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; 
if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. 

These are the qualities of the heirs:

• They are led by the Spirit of God.
• They receive the spirit of adoption
• They are the children of God.
• They are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ.

Only the children of God (through faith) are the heirs. Those in the two lower divisions of the 
celestial kingdom, the terrestrial kingdom, and the telestial kingdom are not heirs (they do not 
receive the spirit of adoption).
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

So again, what is incompatible about these statements?  Joseph Smith is simply stating the obvious progression of what it means to be an heir of God.

A child of God is an heir of God.  And you've shown above that you believe an heir is an exalted 
being. That's why I was trying to make a point that you have many in LDS theology who won't be 
considered children of God because they are not heirs of God (i.e. exalted beings).  They did 
not receive the spirit of adoption.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

And isn’t that exactly what the Bible teaches about those who inherit all that God has?

“He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.”  (Revelation 21:7)

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” (Revelation 3:21)

“And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:  And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.”  (Revelation 2:26–27)

Does the book of Revelation contradict Paul by explaining what the heir actually inherits?

We have different opinions of what it means to "inherit all things".

But based on what you said above, that would just mean that those in the two lower divisions of 
the celestial kingdom, the terrestrial kingdom, and the telestial kingdom are not the sons of 
God and God will not be their God because they did not overcome all things and they do not inherit 
all things.

The Book of Mormon indicates that they failed to enter the strait and narrow path that leads to 
eternal life (2 Nephi 31:18; Jacob 6:11; 3 Nephi 13:13-14).  In 1 Nephi 15:36, Nephi explains 
that the tree of life represents "the greatest of all the gifts of God." In Doctrine and Covenants 
14:7, eternal life is "the greatest of all the gifts of God".
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

And yes, all those who are not exalted fell off the path of being led by the Spirit of God (at some point) because they did not endure to the end (they didn’t “suffer with him”), and they are not the sons of God and adopted in the legal sense of receiving the inheritance, and therefore they are not ultimately “glorified together” with him (receiving exaltation).

So what is your objection?  Be clear.

Looks like we agree on this part of LDS theology.  Those who are not heirs are not the sons of 
God by adoption.  Those who are not sons of God would include all residents of the terrestrial 
kingdom, the terrestrial kingdom, and two lower divisions of the celestial kingdom.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Jesus made it clear.  It means that those who receive the same glory as God and are one with the Father partake of the divine nature and portray the image of God, they emulate the purposes and will of the Father.  They are true representatives of Him.

Does this mean the children of God in the premortal life had a divine nature and portrayed the 
image of God even though they did not have the same glory of God?
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

LDS theology does not teach that anyone gave God the Father his glory.  Rather, it teaches:

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

Do you believe God the Father has a Father like Joseph Smith taught?
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Nice try.  Jesus taught that the worshiping of these individuals would happen at a future time (“I will make them to come and worship before thy feet”, which doesn’t mean they would mortals at that future time.

All of the promises that Jesus makes to the “seven churches” (the entire church) include the future promises to those who “overcome”, which includes men sitting with God in his throne in the same way Jesus sits on the throne with his God and Father.

Let's go down your path again.

So you believe the female members of the church of Philadelphia and other churches will be 
worshipped?  If no, show me where Jesus is only speaking about the men being worshipped?

Where are the members of the synagogue of Satan when they are worshipping at the feet of those 
Philadelphians and others who you believe will be formed into Gods?
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you see how your reference at the bottom of the quotation in your post, “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–346, 348” matches the Vincent Poldrugovac book exactly except for your insertion of the words “previous…. edition”?  That is not how the references appear in the Gospel Principles manual.

Let's quote the original source material from the 1997 Gospel Principles.

Then I'll provide some question and answers.

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: "When you climb up a ladder,
you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you
arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you
must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles
of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed
through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all
to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to
learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave" (Teachings
of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348).

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph
Smith taught: "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know
for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man
like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth,
the same as Jesus Christ himself did" (Teachings of the Prophet
Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and
our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to
succeed even as he did.

Question: What is the way our Heavenly Father became God? 
 
Answer: He climbed his proverbial ladder until he arrived at the top.

Question: Does God becoming God mean only becoming God in the sense that he became a Father?

Answer: No. That's not what is taught here.  He cannot have eternal increase (spirit children) 
before progressing into a God first.

Question: Did God succeed?

Answer: Yes. He wants us to succeed even as he did when he became a God.

Question: Was it similar too for Heavenly Mother when she was formed into a God?

Answer: Yes. Both of them received their fulness of joy (page 14).  "We learned that if we placed 
our faith in him, obeying his word and following his example, we would be exalted and become like 
our heavenly parents. We would receive a fulness of joy" (page 15).

Question: Who's example did Heavenly Mother and Father follow?

Answer: Their Father God.

Question: You mean Christ's Grandfather?

Answer: Yes.

Question: What else did the Prophet Brigham Young teach about Heavenly Father?

Answer: The Father of God the Father created a world for him (Heavenly Father of Earth) and his 
brothers and sisters and provided a saviour for them.  The Father of God the Father made Heavenly 
Father (of Earth) heir of all things.

Question: How do we know this?

Answer: That's what New Era teaches.

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

[8] Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, p. 71.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1971/04/people-on-other-worlds?lang=eng
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Was Jesus God before he dwelt on earth?  Of course he was.  Who created the earth that Jesus was born as a man upon?  Jesus did.  So why should we think anything different for God the Father?

Who gave spirit birth to God the Father before he would progress to have enough power to create
any worlds?
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

I've made this clear.  Joseph Smith never said that Heavenly Father was a man before he became God.  Joseph Smith didn't provide the sequence of events in such a way to suggest he was a man first, and God later.

Brigham Young taught a man (currently God the Father) and his other brothers and sisters were 
not Gods before they became men and women on the worlds they grew up on. They would later progress 
into becoming Gods. I referenced the 1971 New Era article earlier.

Regardless of whether you believe the LDS Heavenly Father was already God before he was a man or 
that he was first a man who would later become a God, 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" (History of the Church, volume 6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1938).

https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf).

His teaching covers both options: the LDS God is not God from all eternity.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

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

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

Right.  And the Father of God the Father instituted laws whereby his children (Heavenly Father 
and Mother of our Earth and all their brothers and sisters from their worlds) could advance to 
Godhood.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

In other words, all the Gods “before us” (compared to our place and time right now) became “kings and priests to God”, the one God who is above all others and is the God of all other gods.

Brigham Young taught that the God of God the Father made him and Heavenly Mother a priest and 
king along with some of the other brothers and sisters of Heavenly Father and Mother.  I referenced 
this earlier in the 1971 New Era.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

So all Gods are subject to the one God and Father of all who is above all.  How can they possibly be made kings and priests to God if they became Gods “before the LDS Heavenly Father became a God” as you claim?

Engage what I’m saying.  Show that you are trying to further the discussion instead of spinning around and repeating yourself. 

The way I see it is that the LDS Heavenly Father of our Earth was not a God before he became a 
spirit child of his heavenly parents.  He became subject to his Father (i.e. Jesus' Grandfather).

Sorry to keep repeating myself several times but I don't know if you believe Heavenly Father of 
our Earth has a Mother and Father God himself or not.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

So in other words, no.  You don’t have a source.  That’s what I thought.  Thank you.

When I read that Latter-day Saints can become (they shall be) gods (really Gods), I see that as 
synonymous with being made (being formed) into Gods.

The 1997 Gospel Principles has the same meaning, although it doesn't use the exact words you are 
looking for.

"All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like 
him—a god".

Doctrine and Covenants 132:29,37 names three individuals who have already become gods (Gods; 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob).
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Now a few more questions:

Do you believe what the apostle Paul taught about revelation?

The apostle Paul taught: “For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.  And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost” (1 Thessalonians 1:5-6).   He also wrote, “my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”  (1 Corinthians 2:4–5)

Do you believe these things?

Yes.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Also from what the apostle Paul taught in 1 Corinthians chapter 2.  Do you believe that God can reveal to us by the Spirit the “deep things of God”?  Where is the “Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God” in your view?  This is the power of God, is it not?

He emphasizes that true understanding comes not through the wisdom of the world but through the 
Spirit of God. Specifically, in verse 10, Paul explains that God reveals these profound truths 
to us through His Spirit, which "searcheth all things." Verse 12 further clarifies that we have 
received the Spirit of God so that we might know the things freely given to us by Him.

This is indeed the power of God at work. The Spirit acts as a guide and teacher, helping us to 
comprehend spiritual truths that might otherwise be beyond our understanding. It's a testimony 
that our connection with the divine is deeply personal and facilitated by the Holy Ghost, which 
is a key principle in the gospel and our faith.

God's Spirit can enlighten our minds and bring peace, guidance, and understanding in a world full 
of noise and confusion. Embracing this gift and seeking spiritual insights through prayer and study 
can certainly bring us closer to the divine truths God wants us to know.
 

On 3/29/2025 at 10:30 PM, InCognitus said:

What do you believe the apostle Paul had in mind when he said, in the last days, there would be those "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof"?  (2 Timothy 3:5)

This scripture speaks about people who may seem pious or religious on the outside but are missing 
the true, transformative power of godliness in their lives. It highlights a disconnect between 
outward appearances and genuine inward conviction or action.

The phrase "form of godliness" might refer to things like participating in religious rituals, 
attending church, or using religious language—but without personal conversion, sincere faith, 
real love, or the spiritual strength that comes from actually living the gospel and relying on 
the Spirit. The "power thereof" points to the transformative power of God and the Holy Spirit—the 
kind that truly changes hearts and lives—and that's an essential part of true discipleship.

Paul's words encourage us to take a personal look at our own discipleship. It's a call to make 
sure our faith is alive and active, and that we're really letting God's power work in us. That
means being sincere and authentic in how we live our beliefs, and allowing the gospel of Jesus 
Christ to shape our thoughts and actions every day. It's a powerful reminder to seek the Spirit 
and embrace the full power of Christ's Atonement in our lives.

[InCognitus]

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Can you demonstrate this for people who are of the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Manasseh, and Ephraim?  Show me large groups of people who can actually trace their family tree back to one of these tribes.

I can't do that with actual documented proof but I'm speculating that the parents would pass 
on these traditions to their children and their children's children so they know they are 
descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and that are viewed as God's special people delivered 
in the Exodus. Some of this is inferred in Exodus 12:24-27; Deuteronomy 4:9-10; 6:6-7; 
11:18-19. 

In your prior post you said you “believe all or most of the descendants of Isaac (the child of promise) know they are Israelites based on their records of family tree and/or traditions passed down from parent to children”. 

And of course you can’t document that.  It’s pure speculation.  But given that those tribes were scattered among the Gentiles because of their continued rejection of God’s covenant and their disobedience and departure from the faith (i.e. Jeremiah 5:19, Jeremiah 16:11-13, Jeremiah 29:15-19), why would you think that the things in Exodus 12:24-27, Deuteronomy 4:9-10; 6:6-7; 11:18-19 would even cross their mind?  

Some of the covenant promises and curses are given to Israel in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26, and in Deuteronomy it explains what happens to them after they are scattered:

“And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.  And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone.”  (Deuteronomy 28:63–64)

So why would they be taught by their parents who they are?  Why would they keep a tradition of a God they have rejected?

In order for Israel to be gathered again they must return to God’s covenant.  How are they going to do that if they are not taught the gospel of Jesus Christ, and how will they know who they are unless God reveals it unto them?

Jeremiah explains how the gathering is carried out:

“Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;  But, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.  Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the Lord, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks.  For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes.”  (Jeremiah 16:14–17)

The Lord sends his servants to find them and to seek them out specifically.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

They would also be teaching their children the Hebrew language, unlike the Native American 
Indians which did not inherit the Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian language from their ancestors.

The closest we can dome to this is an African tribe known as the Lemba people in South Africa and Zimbabwe, and they speak the language Bantu (not Hebrew).  Modern DNA studies have revealed that a substantial number of Lemba men carry a Cohen genetic marker (Cohen modal haplotype), although some other studies have disputed those claims.  These people do have a Jewish connection and have Jewish customs, but your ideas about how this would play out for all the so called “lost tribes” (Reuben, Simeon, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Manasseh, and Ephraim) seems rather unrealistic.

Do you have any other ideas on how these lost tribes might be recognized on their own without God’s help?

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Don’t you think it is better if the Lord just reveals it to them?

I suppose that is why you believe the patriarchal blessing is for.

The 1991 Ensign magazine mentions a few things:

"The great majority of those who become members of the Church are literal descendants of 
Abraham through Ephraim"

"The set time is come for God to gather Israel, and for His work to commence upon the face 
of the whole earth, and the Elders who have arisen in this Church and Kingdom are actually 
of Israel".

The Religion 430-431 Student Manual teaches "It is Ephraim, today, who holds the priesthood. 
It is with Ephraim that the Lord has made covenant and has revealed the fulness of the 
everlasting gospel. It is Ephraim who is building temples and performing the ordinances in 
them for both the living and for the dead".

Why does this (the building of temples and their ordinances) rely on Ephraim in the LDS 
Church at the exclusion of the other tribes?

You are rebooting the conversation again.  We’ve already discussed this quote from the Religion 430-431 Student Manual several times in this thread.  See my post on 05/18/2024.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

The same Ensign article mentions, "It is the house of Israel we are after, and we care not 
whether they come from the east, the west, the north, or the south; from China, Russia, 
England, California, North or South America, or some other locality".

This focus on only literal Israelites through Jacob and/or the other descendants of Abraham 
through his other wives is not in line with the Great Commission. Jesus instructed His 
disciples to "teach all nations," emphasizing a universal mission to spread the gospel to 
everyone, regardless of nationality or background.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1991/01/of-the-house-of-israel?lang=eng

Don't forget about Jeremiah 16:14–17 (that I quoted above):

“14 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;  15 But, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.  16 Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the Lord, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks.  17 For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes.”  (Jeremiah 16:14–17)

Israel is being sought out specifically, God has his eyes on “them”, and he sends his servants out to find “them”.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Scripture itself doesn't explicitly state that Ephraim leads the gathering of Israel. The idea that
Ephraim has a special role in gathering Israel comes from how Doctrine and Covenants 133:26-34 
is interpreted.

You forgot about Deuteronomy 33:17 which we also discussed several times in this thread, where Moses blessed Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) to “push the people together to the ends of the earth”.   See my post on 02/25/2024, and also my post on 07/26/2024 where I also pointed out:

“Even in early Christianity, some of the early Christian fathers saw Christ working in Joseph in the last days in the fulfillment of the prophecy in Deuteronomy 33:17 regarding the pushing together of the ‘nations’ (for two such examples, see Tertullian – Against Marcion, Book 3, Chapter 18, and Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 91). “

And Zechariah 10:6-12 shows that the Lord prepares the house of Joseph and Ephriam specifically to do this by sowing them among the nations, and “they shall live with their children, and turn again”.  Then the Lord begins the gathering, starting with them.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

The temple court also held ten bronze basins for washing the sacrifices (2 Chronicles 4:6), but the Sea, or the bronze laver, was only for the priests to wash in.”

It was for cleansing and purification.

Right.  No women, no Gentiles, and no proxy baptisms.

No kidding.

But the question you asked was: “How is the symbolism of the brazen sea the same in the Old Testament as in LDS temples?”

The symbolism is the same.  Both are for cleansing and purification, and the twelve oxen with three each facing the four directions (north, south, east, and west) represent the gathering of the twelve tribes of Israel. The same symbolism of the old temple is used in the new, which is now for the baptismal purification on behalf of the dead.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

But the Bible is filled with examples of people receiving revelation or other information or experiences that they are told to keep secret.  It’s a directive that comes from God, not from Freemasonry as you want to believe.

One of the key elements that Freemasons are expected to keep private are the rituals and ceremonies 
involved in initiation and advancement through the different degrees of Freemasonry.

“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.”  (Revelation 2:17)

Right, so let’s connect everything that a person is expected to keep private to the Freemasons.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

These rituals, 
which include symbolic acts, oaths, and handshakes, are meant to be kept confidential among members.

And of course nothing like that ever occurred in early Christianity, right?

The anti-Christian philosopher Celsus (writing around AD 170 to 180) wrote the following about the Christians of his day:

“The cult of Christ is a secret society whose members huddle together in corners for fear of being brought to trial and punishment.  Their persistence is the persistence of a group threatened by a common danger, and danger is a more powerful incentive to fraternal feeling than is any oath.  As to their doctrine, it was originally barbarian, and while even barbarians are capable of discovering truth, it happens to be the case that Greeks are best equipped to judge the merit of what passes for truth these days.  They also practice their rites in secret in order to avoid the sentence of death that looms over them.”    (Celsus On the True Doctrine – A Discourse Against the Christians, translated by R. Joseph Hoffmann, Oxford University Press, 1987, p.53)

Minucius Felix (between 200 and 250 AD), one of the earliest Latin apologists for Christianity, wrote a dialogue on Christianity between the pagan Caecilius Natalis and the Christian, Octavius Januarius.  He records Caecilius Natalis as saying the following against Christians:

“They know one another by secret marks and insignia, and they love one another almost before they know one another. Everywhere also there is mingled among them a certain religion of lust, and they call one another promiscuously brothers and sisters, that even a not unusual debauchery may by the intervention of that sacred name become incestuous: it is thus that their vain and senseless superstition glories in crimes.”  (Minucius Felix—Octavius Chapter 9)

Lactantius (c. 250 – c. 325), a North African Christian apologist, wrote the following:

“This is the doctrine of the holy prophets which we Christians follow; this is our wisdom, which they who worship frail objects, or maintain an empty philosophy, deride as folly and vanity, because we are not accustomed to defend and assert it in public, since God orders us in quietness and silence to hide His secret, and to keep it within our own conscience; and not to strive with obstinate contention against those who are ignorant of the truth, and who rigorously assail God and His religion not for the sake of learning, but of censuring and jeering. For a mystery ought to be most faithfully concealed and covered, especially by us, who bear the name of faith. But they accuse this silence of ours, as though it were the result of an evil conscience; whence also they invent some detestable things respecting those who are holy and blameless, and willingly believe their own inventions.”  (Lactantius—Divine Institutes Book 7 Ch. 26, paragraph 3)

The early Christians must have gotten their secret marks and secret rites from the Freemasons too, right?  (No doubt you think so.)

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Yes The Bible has several examples of people receiving revelation or other information or experiences 
that they are told to keep secret for a time or permanently:  But this is done individually and 
not for the church as a whole.

Temple rites are for individuals, each and every one of them.

Hippolytus of Rome, one of the most important Christian theologians of the second-third centuries, wrote the following in approximately 215 AD:

“We have delivered these things to you only briefly concerning baptism and the oblation because you have already been instructed concerning the resurrection of the flesh and the rest according to what is written. If there is anything else which needs to be told, the bishop shall tell it privately to those who receive baptism. None but the faithful may know, and even them only after receiving baptism. This is the white stone about which John said, ‘A new name is written on it, which no one knows except the one who received the stone.’” (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition, Chapter 21, statements 39-40 – PDF page 11)

The quote above was long after the actual temple rites had vanished, but the statement reflects that there was a tradition of these things that was passed down to them.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Yes The Bible has several examples of people receiving revelation or other information or experiences 
that they are told to keep secret for a time or permanently:  But this is done individually and 
not for the church as a whole.

2 Corinthians 12:4: Paul speaks of being caught up into Paradise and hearing inexpressible things, 
things no one is permitted to tell.

Revelation 10:4: John hears seven thunders and is about to write them down, but is told to seal 
up what the seven thunders have said and not write it down.

Matthew 17:9: After the Transfiguration, Jesus instructs Peter, James, and John not to tell anyone 
about the vision until after His resurrection.

Matthew 8:4: After healing a man with leprosy, Jesus tells him to tell no one, but to show himself 
to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded.

But this has nothing to do with the Great Commission or what the disciples did in the temple prior 
to its destruction around 70 A.D.

And of course neither the Great Commission nor what the disciples did in the temple prior to its destruction around 70 A.D. had anything to do with the temple rites that were administered among the early Christians, as I have repeatedly said throughout this thread.  So what is your point exactly?

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

In case you don't know, the Five Points of Fellowship and other secret oaths and handshakes of the 
LDS faith have their origin in Freemasonry – not in any Old or New Testament scripture.

In case you didn’t know, the early Christians also had secrets rites that aren’t in the Old or New Testament scripture (as noted above).  Why would you think they would be stupid enough to publish those secrets in the Old or New Testaments for all to see?  (Obviously they must have gotten that from Freemasonry too, of course).

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Under the law of Moses, yes.  Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are all about providing the details of the law.  That's when it was given and that's why it provides all those details.  But what about at Mount Sinai before Israel broke their covenants?

The Book of Mormon is full of temple symbolism and imagery.

Those details were not secret.

I didn't understand what point you are trying to make when you ask "But what about at Mount Sinai 
before Israel broke their covenants".

Prior to Israel breaking their covenants at Mount Sinai there were temple rituals being performed, including those leading up to and including the seventy elders of Israel seeing “the God of Israel” as depicted briefly in Exodus 19 and 24, and none of the details are depicted in the Old Testament.  There are, however, some key features mentioned such as sacrifice and atonement (Abraham and Isaac) and the offering of sacrifices (Adam, Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and more), and covenant making.

After Israel broke their covenants the law of Moses was given, and Israel was subjected to the lesser law of God, which included limitations on the priesthood (by lineage) and the keeping of detailed rituals that are spelled out in depth in the books of the law (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy).

So prior to Israel breaking their covenants on Mount Sinai, where are the commandments written down on when and how to make offerings explained?  Where are the detailed instructions leading up to why Noah built an altar to the Lord and offered burnt offerings on the altar (Genesis 8:20)?  Or why did Abram build an alter to the LORD in Genesis 12:7-8?  Did these people just spontaneously start making altars and making offerings and sacrifices?  Or did they receive some instructions from the LORD on how and when to do those things that we don’t have in the biblical texts?   If it was just a man-made practice because it seemed like the right thing to do, then why did God continue some aspect of those prior practices in the law of Moses?

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Would you provide a few examples which specifically identify objects in the Nephite temple?

All I see is a blanket statement in 2 Nephi 5:16, where Nephi mentions building a temple similar 
to the temple of Solomon, which would have included an altar for burnt offerings.  But by itself, 
the Book of Mormon doesn't explain what objects are used for.

Here is one detailed example:  “Ancient Temple Imagery in the Sermons of Jacob”, by David E. Bokovoy, in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 46 (2021): 31-46.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Baptisms weren’t performed in temples until after the coming of Christ, and then it was baptism for the dead.

New Testament Christians did not baptize for the dead in the brazen sea. But you already know its 
purpose.

And, I already said that they didn’t do baptisms for the dead in the Jerusalem temple.  But as you already know (since you asked that question), the symbolism is exactly the same.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

There is no baptism for the dead in the Book of Mormon either.  Apparently it was not important 
enough to mention for all those hundreds of years after Jesus is recorded to have appeared to the 
Nephites.

Apparently, you believe the Book of Mormon and Bible are supposed to contain every single detailed instruction from God about the temple and everything we need to know about God and everything that was ever done or taught.  But I don’t believe that, because that is not the purpose of either one of those books of scripture.  So, who cares if baptism for the dead isn’t mentioned in the Book of Mormon?  I don’t.

But it is mentioned in the Bible.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

That’s because the Jaredites predate the house of Israel and the institution of specific places for ordinances.

This was in my response to my statement that Ether's record of the Jaredites doesn't even mention 
the temple.

My response about the Jaredites was in the context of temples such as those erected by Israel later on (such as the temple at Jerusalem).  The Jaredite temple worship was different for reasons explained below.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

The 2021 General Conference sermon by President Nelson said, "Indeed, whenever the Lord has had 
a people on the earth who will obey His word, they have been commanded to build temples. In every 
age, the temple has underscored the precious truth that those who make covenants with God and keep 
them are children of the covenant".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2021/10/47nelson?lang=eng

Read President Nelson’s comments more carefully, including the footnotes from which he is getting his quote. 

President Nelson was quoting from the Bible dictionary topic on the “Temple”, where it also says:

“In cases of extreme poverty or emergency, these ordinances may sometimes be done on a mountaintop (see D&C 124:37–55). This may be the case with Mount Sinai and the Mount of Transfiguration. The tabernacle erected by Moses was a type of portable temple, since the Israelites were traveling in the wilderness.”

Mountain tops are often used as temples in the Old Testament.  This is also true for the Jaredites in the Book of Mormon.  See for example:  Why Did Moroni Use Temple Imagery While Telling the Brother of Jared Story?

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

There is no temple in every age, from the days of Adam, until the first one is built in Jerusalem.

Where does the Bible say that there were “no temples” from the days of Adam until the one is built in Jerusalem?  What was God’s purpose at Mount Sinai?  What was the purpose of the tabernacle in the wilderness, if not for a temple?

We already know that the Old Testament, prior to God bringing Israel to Mount Sinai, doesn’t give us any indication for why sacrifices and offerings were made (see Genesis 4:4; 8:20; 12:7-8; 13:4,18; 22:9; 26:25; 33:20; 35:7), nor does it tell us why Melchizedek was the “priest of the most high God” and Abraham just spontaneously decided to pay tithes to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-20, Hebrews 7:4-10).  So why would you expect it to tell you about temples too?

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

There is no temple in every age, from the days of Adam, until the first one is built in Jerusalem.

There is no mention of temples in the Pearl of Great Price.

While the Book of Mormon mentions temples being built, there is zero archaeological evidence for 
them and there is no command by God to build them in the first place. But I can understand how 
Latter-day Saints like to use pictures of Mayan structures to represent the temple at Bountiful 
where Christ supposedly appeared to the Nephites.

There is no command to build temples in various places in the Old and New Testament.

Nor are any commandments recorded on how and when to make offerings or animal sacrifices prior to the law of Moses, yet it was done.  There is no mention of it.  So why was it done?  See Genesis 12:7-8; 13:4, 18; 22:9; 26:25; 33:20; 35:7.  I guess the Bible forgot to include that important information and left that part out?  (See the response above as well).

Neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon was intended to a be a day by day, minute by minute account of the people described in the book, nor is it intended to be a handbook of everything we need to know about God or a handbook of instructions on how to operate his church on earth.  Both books were always intended to be supplements to the administration of the church through prophets and apostles that are called by God, and God directed (and directs today) his church through those men by revelation. 

This is one of the many reasons why I find the arguments that say “The Book of Mormon never mentions [whatever]” to be straw man arguments and lacks understanding of the Latter-day Saint views on the subject.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Another thing worth mentioning is that Christ tore the temple veil, allowing us to enter the Holy 
of Holies without the need of a sinful, earthly high priest.  We don't need to make sacred handshakes 
or utter sacred passphrases to enter.

The Latter-day Saints have reinstituted the veil in temple rituals.

The veil isn’t done away.  The blood of Jesus lets us enter with “boldness” into the holiest place in the temple, “through the veil” (Hebrews 10:19-21).  That’s not going to happen if there is no “veil”. 

Furthermore, veils were often present in early Christian places of worship.  See for example the photos and descriptions in this article:  The Development of Early Christian Sanctuaries, from Temples to Homes to Basilicas.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

But that wasn’t the question.  The question was about the temple mentioned in Revelation 11:1-2, not Revelation 11:19.  

This is the question to you:  If the temple of Revelation 11:1-2 is in heaven (as you believed), then why would it make sense for John to need to “measure” those that worship therein?

The temple in Revelation 11:1-2 seems to be a future temple in Jerusalem.  The Gentiles will 
thread on the holy city for forty-two months.

Ok, so we have a future temple not in heaven here. Obviously temples are still said to continue into the future despite you saying they are only “the temple of the Holy Spirit”, and “That is why New Testament Christians do not build physical temples like Latter-day Saints do.”

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

The temple in Revelation 11:19 is in heaven.

We have already discussed all this.  

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

In response to my statement, "New Testament Christians never build a physical temple after the 
one in Jerusalem is destroyed".

After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, Christians did not build temples in 
the traditional sense, as the Jewish people had done for centuries. Instead, early Christians 
developed a different form of worship and community gathering. Christianity began to distinguish 
itself from Judaism, and with the belief that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the Temple's 
purpose, there was a theological shift that made the construction of temples unnecessary.

Early Christians gathered in house churches, often in private homes or secret locations, especially 
in the first few centuries when Christianity was still illegal in the Roman Empire. These house 
churches were simple, and their focus was on communal worship, prayer, and the reading of Christian 
scriptures, rather than on offering sacrifices as was done in the Jewish Temple.

The idea of a permanent, dedicated Christian place of worship began to evolve more clearly after 
Christianity was legalized under Constantine. This led to the construction of basilicas and large 
church buildings. These were not temples in the sense of Jewish worship, but places where Christians 
could gather, celebrate the Eucharist, and conduct other aspects of worship. 

And, we have already discussed all this, and it is answered in the very next statement from me in my prior post that follows what you quoted above, and it said:

“Which are exactly the kinds of places they could have used to set apart a specific area within one or more of those locations and dedicated it for temple related ordinances.  The same kind of thing happened in the early days of the restored Church.”

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Which are exactly the kinds of places they could have used to set apart a specific area within one or more of those locations and dedicated it for temple related ordinances.  The same kind of thing happened in the early days of the restored Church.

Early Christians often met and worshiped in homes during the New Testament times. This practice 
was common because dedicated church buildings as we know them today didn't exist yet. 

You are repeating yourself; we have already discussed all this.  Those are also exactly the kinds of places they would have picked out a place and dedicated for temple worship, as well.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

What temple-specific ordinances do Latter-day Saints perform in their home where a temple is not 
available?

None now (but you already know that, so why ask this as a question?), because temples are available now in various parts of the world, so that isn’t done today. 

But in the early days of the restoration, baptisms for the dead were performed in rivers and streams prior to the construction of temples, and endowments were administered at first in the upper room of Joseph Smith’s red-brick store building in Nauvoo.  Brigham Young also used a mountain top, Ensign Peak, for temple ordinances.  And, the upper floor of the Council House, Salt Lake City's first public building, served as the Endowment house between February 1851, and May 1855.  And later another structure was dedicated as the Endowment house near temple square prior to the completion of the Salt Lake temple.

The early Christian saints would have used similar resources for performing temple ordinances in the absence of a building constructed specifically for that purpose.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, the concept of temple worship in early Christianity was transformed (and became more informed), focusing on Jesus Christ as the ultimate High Priest and His atoning sacrifice. 

See:  The Temple and Your Spiritual Foundation, By President Russell M. Nelson, October 2021 General Conference: 

I understand that view.  On the flip side, the veil is torn and the temple is no longer needed.  
No need for earthly LDS high priests either. See Hebrews chapters 9 and 10. That's why we don't 
build temples.

Right, which is why you say you don’t build temples and ignore the office of priests in the New Testament.  But this is totally contrary to the New Testament intent for the temple as we have discussed previously and was shown above.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

In John’s revelation, Jesus talked about the temple and the importance of it in the future of Christianity, saying that the good and faithful members of Christ’s church would become “pillar[s] in the temple of my God”.  That has to happen in a temple somewhere, and it’s not the one in heaven.

"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: 
and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new 
Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name" 
(Revelation 3:12).

There is some commentary about that verse which indicates this temple is symbolic of the Body of 
Christ, the Church.

Of course, and this points out a big difference between what you believe and what I believe.

I believe that God is the same today as he was in Bible times and that he directs his church today through revelation to men who are called by God, just exactly like he did in Bible times.  God has given instructions to his church today to build temples.  Consequently, when I read verses like Revelation 3:12 where Jesus teaches that those who overcome will be made a “pillar in the temple of my God”, it fits right in with what God has told us to do today.

But for those who believe that God isn’t the same as he was in Bible times and that God’s revelations are confined to the 66 books of the Bible, things are different.  When they come across a verse like Revelation 3:12 where it talks about future temples and faithful followers of Jesus being told by Jesus that they will be made “a pillar in the temple of my God”, and those people aren’t building any temples, they need to find a way to reinterpret that verse to not be talking about an actual temple of God, but to make it be “symbolic of the Body of Christ, the Church” instead.  What else can they do?

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Overcoming Christians will be placed in the position of pillars in the temple is the same as saying 
that these Christians will occupy sure, secure, firmly established positions of strength and power, 
positions which will be realized when they rule and reign as co-heirs with Christ in the [millennial] 
kingdom." [Note: Chitwood, p. 101. Cf. Overstreet, pp. 453-55.]

Right, but they will be ruling and reigning as co-heirs with Christ as pillars “in the temple of [his] God” during the millennial kingdom, as the verse says.  That’s hard to do unless there are actual temples around during the millennial kingdom.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

The faithful Christian will be a pillar in the Temple of God. A pillar of the Church is a great 
and honoured support. Peter and James and John were the pillars of the early church in Jerusalem 
( Galatians 2:9) and perhaps 1 Timothy 3:15. All Christians are living-stones in the Temple 
(Ephesians 2:20 , 1 Peter 2:5), - CBSC

The temple was the dwelling place of God. Paul refers to believers, both individually and corporately, 
as the temple of God (1 Corinthians 3:16-17). The language here describes the believer's permanent 
residence in the abode and presence of God. - FSB

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/revelation/3-12.html

Yes, in the New Testament both our individual bodies and the body of the church itself have been compared to a temple for the Holy Spirit.

However, that interpretation makes absolutely no sense in the context of the book of Revelation pertaining to Revelation 3:12 and Revelation 21:22 (as I will explain below).

Earlier you claimed that Revelation 3:12 was referring to “the temple of the Holy Spirit”.  I responded (referring to 1 Corinthians 3:16) that “Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit.  How does it make sense for Jesus to say (in Revelation 3:12), him that overcometh will be made a pillar in the temple of their bodies?”

And the commentary you quote above seems to be alluding to this same nonsensical interpretation.

In addition, the commentary also brings up that the church itself has been compared to a temple, as it is described in Ephesians 2:19-22:

“Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;  In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:  In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”  (Ephesians 2:19–22)

But these verses also explain that the church is a “temple” only in the same sense that our individual bodies are “temples”, which is “an habitation of God through the [Holy] Spirit”.  So this interpretation is really no different than the idea that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, which doesn’t really work for those who “overcome” and are made pillars in the temple of God the Father.

Furthermore, this interpretation makes absolutely no sense in the context of the book of Revelation, given that when describing New Jerusalem in Revelation 21:22, John finds it noteworthy to say, “And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.”  Are we to understand that there are no believers (both individually and corporately) in that city?  Of course not.

Revelation 21:22 also explains why there is no temple in New Jerusalem, because “the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it”.  This correlates with Revelation 3:12, where Jesus says the overcomers are made pillars in “the temple of my God”.  In other words, the temple described in Revelation 3:12 is not the temple of God through the Holy Spirit (as it the word “temple” is used symbolically in 1 Corinthians 3:16 and Ephesians 2:19-22), but it is the actual temple of God the Father (the God of Jesus Christ).  The verse means that those who overcome will be in his actual presence of God the Father in the celestial kingdom of God (the holy place of the temple). 

The New Jerusalem that comes down from heaven (of Revelation 21:22) is not of the telestial world, which is ministered through the Holy Spirit (D&C 76:86), and it is not of the terrestrial world (as it is during the millennial reign of Christ on earth), who “receive the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father” (D&C 76:77), but it is the celestial kingdom of God that is present on the celestialized earth.

This also explains why temples are needed now (on the telestial earth) and why they will be needed during the millennial reign of Christ (on the terrestrial earth), because temples are dedicated and set apart as a sacred space where the things of the world and unprepared individuals are separated from the presence of God the Father who is through the veil into the holy place.  But all the earth will be celestialized at the time of Revelation 21:22, so that is exactly why no temple is needed at that time.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Then it says in 3 Nephi 16, verse 1: “And verily, verily, I say unto you that I have other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to minister.”

Here Jesus tells the Nephites that he has other sheep which aren’t in any of the areas where Jesus visited during his mortal ministry prior to his resurrection

I see your point.

The phrase "whither I have been to minister" would be clearer if it said "whither I will go to 
minister".

I don’t think you see my point (about what the text says) if you think it would be clearer if he said “whither I will go to minister”.   Jesus says here that he has other sheep (that he will visit in the near future) which aren’t of “this land” (the land of the Nephites), neither are they from any of the areas where he had already been to minister during his mortal ministry (as explained in the prior chapter). 

Jesus continues in the next verse: “For they of whom I speak [the other sheep that aren’t in the Nephite lands or the areas where Jesus taught during his mortal ministry] are they who have not as yet heard my voice; neither have I at any time manifested myself unto them. But I have received a commandment of the Father that I shall go unto them, and that they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered among my sheep, that there may be one fold and one shepherd; therefore I go to show myself unto them.”  (3 Nephi 16:2–3)

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Ok, so you don’t believe that God had any further dealings with the scattered tribes of Israel after they were scattered, and the prophets they had among them just died off and were forgotten?  Do you believe God just forgot about those tribes or ignored them for a period of time?   That’s an honest question.

Scripture is quiet between the time of Malachi and the advent of John the Baptist, so I cannot 
elaborate further.  God didn't forget the scattered tribes. I believe they had still some form 
of scripture.  Some were looking for the Messiah to come. Simeon and Anna the prophetess are 
specifically mentioned.  Scripture is more focused on the remaining tribes that were still living 
in the land of Israel.

Yes, the scriptures that we have currently in our Bible are centered around the events taking place in and around Jerusalem, which is why it doesn’t give us accounts of what happened to the scattered tribes of Israel after their dispersion.  But God didn’t forget those scattered tribes and Jesus went to visit them after his resurrection. 

And scripture being quiet between Malachi and the advent of John the Baptist is totally irrelevant to the question of the records of the scattered tribes of Israel, because the ten northern tribes were long gone by that point in the recorded history.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

The prophet Amos (who lived and prophesied prior to the scattering of the northern tribes) wrote: 

“Hear this word that the Lord hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”  (Amos 3:1–2)

The prophet Amos had “the whole family” of Israel in mind when he wrote those words, so that included all the tribes of Israel.  And the Book of Mormon teaches that God raised up prophets to these other tribes when they went into the other nations and had their own scripture (2 Nephi 29:7-12, Mosiah 3:13).  Why do you believe and teach that God forgot these people and had nothing more to say to them?

God had not forgotten them.  But I have no record of God visiting these other tribes other than 
what some believe are true events written in the Book of Mormon.  

I see the "other sheep" as the Gentiles but you see it as other Israelites.

Right, I see the “other sheep” as the other Israelites because having it refer to the Gentiles would contradict Jesus when he said, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24).  I don’t believe Jesus contradicts himself.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Quite possibly, part 
of this punishment was God not actively sending prophets to them until the advent of John the 
Baptist.

I think the timing on when God might have sent prophets to the lost tribes could have at the very least be as you describe above, yes.  Those prophets would definitely be preparing the way for when Jesus visited those lost tribes after his resurrection (since Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel). 

But obviously John the Baptist himself didn’t go out to where the scattered tribes were located in the north countries and all over the world.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Wait a minute. Given that Romans 9:7-9 and Galatians 4:28-31 state those who come to Christ become the seed of Abraham and are counted as “the children of the promise”, where do you make a distinction (biblically speaking) in what those promises entail? Show from scripture where Abraham’s “seed” means only the literal seed for receiving the land promises.

I see the reference to the meek (all nationalities) inheriting the earth (in general; the children 
of the promise - Matthew 5:5) and the literal Israelites inheriting a more specific land of 
inheritance (Genesis 13:14-15; 15:18; 17:8; 24:7; 28:4,13; 35:12; Exodus 13:11; 32:13; 33:1; 
Leviticus 25:38; 26:42; Numbers 13:2; Joshua 14; Ezekiel 11:17; 20:40,42; 28:25;36:24,28; 47:13-14; 
48:7-29 – there are many more).

Yes, the Israelites (and all nationalities) will inherit the entire earth, for they are among the meek, the righteous, those who are blessed of the Lord, and those who wait on the Lord (Psalm 379, 11, 21-22, 34).  But again, the verses you list for the land promises don’t say anything about whether they are literally the seed of Abraham or not.  But given that Israel was scattered among all nations, maybe all the world has literal Israelite blood in them at this point?  How would you know?

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

I don’t find anything in the verses that you list or in Genesis 12:7, 13:14-15, 17, 15:7, 18-21, and 17:8 saying that the land promises made to Abraham are limited to his literal descendants, do you?

The land inheritance mentioned in the scriptures I provide do not specifically include those who 
would later become the spiritual seed of Abraham (those who accept Christ as Savior - Romans 9:7-9 
and Galatians 4:28-31).

Nor do they exclude them.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

You're mixing the blessings upon the Church with the blessings upon Israel into one pile. God still 
has outstanding promises to fulfil with literal Israel (Abraham's seed through Isaac).  Some overlap 
with the Church, some don't.

I’m not the one mixing the blessings, scripture says that those who come to Christ become the seed of Abraham and are counted as “the children of the promise” (Romans 9:7-9, Galatians 4:28-31).  What is that “promise”?

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

According to the Book of Mormon, no Jaredite but him was ever discovered by the Nephites during 
all their travels.  They met no one else.  That would be like the Book of Exodus mentioning that 
the Jews never encountered any group of people as they made their way out of Egypt to the Jordan 
River.

Even with the writings of LDS leaders, they only mention interacting with Lamanites (who they once 
taught were the principal ancestors of the Native American Indians) but they never say anything 
about meeting descendants of the Jaredite civilization.  Why?  Because that ended with the death 
of Coriantumr.

President Anthony W. Ivins, April 1929 General Conference:

“We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent”.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

As you can see, I take a more literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation, as trying to fit 
it into a purely symbolic or metaphorical context doesn't quite add up.  I'll speak more of this 
when I get to the topic of the "ten toes".

So you take a more literal interpretation of the book of Revelation (using the word “literally” to mean taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory), making it out to be a literal beast with literal horns and their armies riding on literal horses, and angels standing on the literal four corners of the earth, and there are literal harlots, literal dragons, a literal lamb, literal seven heads, literal serpents, etc. etc.   Right.  A literal beast with seven heads and ten horns will be a lot easier to pick out in a crowd, so I understand why a literal view might be appealing to some.  But that’s just not how apocalyptic literature symbolism works (see the Got Questions website article, Why is apocalyptic literature so strange?).

Do you also believe there are only “seven churches” that ever existed or will exist, as discussed in the beginning of the book?  Or do you accept the possibility that even the numbers can be symbolic along with the other prophetic keys to understanding these things?

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

2 Thessalonians 2:8-10 says, "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume 
with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose 
coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all 
deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the 
truth, that they might be saved".

I am not aware of any significant past historical event which biblically satisfies this. 

You are doing it again.  You aren’t engaging in anything I said, and your comment above proves you didn’t even read what I wrote last time, or you wouldn’t be inferring that I believe those specific verses are past events.

This is part of what I said last time:

“As for 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, the ‘man of sin’ is Satan and those he influences.  Satan is THE antichrist and those he influences are antichrists, and it is through those under Satan’s influence that his works of darkness are made manifest.  And, according to the apostle Paul, Satan’s power was at work from Paul’s day (as he says in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, ‘the mystery of iniquity doth already work’) and his work will continue until Jesus returns and exposes him.  So, Satan works through a myriad of persons from Paul’s day all the way until the second coming of Jesus, where Paul says the coming of Jesus “is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders” (verse 9).  This is one huge reason that this so called ‘antichrist’ cannot be one single human being.  Humans don’t live that long.”

So according to Paul, the events described in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 begin to take shape starting in Paul’s day (“the mystery of iniquity doth already work”, verse 7) and will continue to unfold up until the time when Jesus returns and the wicked works of Satan (that are being done through the evil men he influences) will be destroyed with the brightness of his coming.

The only parts of 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 that I said have already been fulfilled are the great apostasy and the man of sin being made manifest through Titus (verses 3-4) when he looted and destroyed the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD,  when he “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4).  He looted and destroyed the temple at Jerusalem and was “deified” for his conquest by the Romans, as I documented in my prior post.

And Satan continued to work through a myriad of persons after that time and continuing all the way up to the present day when he continues to do the same, and the workings of Satan will all be put to an end at the second coming of Jesus.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

This literal view is more logical than how the LDS Church is interpreting it.

I have no interest in speculating with you about the meaning of those chapters in Revelation.  It is irrelevant to our topic except related to your claim to identify the timing of the apostasy mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, which you still haven’t explained.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

“So if you believe 2 Thes 2 is referring to the beast mentioned in Revelation 19:19-20, then how is it that this beast began his work at the time of Paul (i.e. ‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work’)?  Is the beast a man, or something else that can live from the time of Paul until the coming of Christ?”

I see there being an unholy trinity of Satan (the Devil), the beast, and the false prophet.  The 
beast and the false prophet are men.  They are both cast alive into the lake of fire at the Second 
Coming (Revelation 19:20). Satan is bound for a thousand years in the pit after this event 
(Revelation 20:1-3).

Maybe the Latter-day Saints view the Devil, the beast, and the false prophet in Revelation 19 
and 20 as encompassing the statue in Daniel's vision – depicting only kingdoms in opposition to 
God instead of specific individuals.

You still didn’t answer the question, and the question is at the very heart of the reason that your view makes absolutely no sense in conjunction with 2 Thessalonians 2:7.

This was the question:  “So if you believe 2 Thes 2 is referring to the beast mentioned in Revelation 19:19-20, then how is it that this beast began his work at the time of Paul (i.e. ‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work’)?  Is the beast a man, or something else that can live from the time of Paul until the coming of Christ?”

Do you agree that Paul was saying that the man of sin (and his lawlessness) was already at work in 2 Thessalonians verse 7?  If so, what is that referring to?  And given that it was starting in Paul’s time how could there be any connection to Revelation 13 and 19?

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

This made the governing state the enforcer of the doctrines of the church that remained.  Is that the same church that you believe has never gone into apostasy?

There was some apostasy in the church as Paul mentioned.  Some apostasy is also mentioned in one 
of the seven churches in the Book of Revelation. But I don't believe the church was destroyed like 
the 1997 Gospel Principles teaches.

First of all, my comment was about when the Roman emperors Theodosius I, Gratian, and Valentinian II had published the Edict of Thessalonica (on November 27, 380 AD), which ordered that all their subjects should profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, and they punished anyone that rejected the Nicene creed, the same creed that had the word homoousious inserted into it by another Roman emperor (Constantine).  And you call this “some” apostasy?  Does that church at that time have any resemblance to the organization of the church that Jesus established?  Seriously? 

Second, “some” apostasy is not what Paul was talking about.  “Some” apostasy FROM the church is not the same as apostasy OF the church itself.  It would be really really silly for Paul to try to tell his troubled readers that the second coming of Jesus would not happen “soon” because there must come “some” apostasy first, if the kind of apostasy he had in mind was exactly like the kind of apostasy that was already happening all around them.  How would that help them to think that the second coming would not happen soon?  They would think Paul was crazy.

The apostasy that Paul had in mind was on a much larger scale, the kind that changes the church itself (like what I documented above).  It came about from individuals changing the leadership structure (the elimination of the apostles and the replacement of the bishops) and then the replaced leaders would teach according to their own thinking rather than getting revelation from God.  Paul prophesied that the changes to the bishops would take place “after his departing” (Acts 20:28-31), and the historical writings of the Christians after that time confirmed that those bishop replacements were taking place (such as that noted in Clement of Rome’s letter to the church at Corinth).

As for the 1997 Gospel Principles manual (which you are very fond of bringing up), you already know (because you’ve been told many times) that that portion of the manual is talking about the changing of the organization of Christ’s church in exactly the same way Paul described it.  In the section, the “Apostasy from the True Church”, it says:

“Throughout history, evil people have tried to destroy the work of God. This happened while the Apostles were still alive and supervising the young, growing Church. Some members taught ideas from their old pagan or Jewish beliefs instead of the simple truths taught by Jesus. In addition, there was persecution from outside the Church. Church members were tortured and killed for their beliefs. One by one, the Apostles were killed. Because of the persecution, surviving Apostles could not meet to choose and ordain men to replace those who were dead. Eventually, local priesthood leaders were the only ones who had authority to direct the scattered branches of the Church. The perfect organization of the Church no longer existed, and confusion resulted. More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the destruction of the Church was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the Great Apostasy.” (Gospel Principles, 1997, page 105)

Now, are you going to tell me that the exact same organization that Jesus established of apostles and prophets actually did continue to exist, and therefore the “destruction of the Church” was not complete?  Do you really think the church that was directed by the Roman emperors in the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD is the exact same church that Jesus established?  (Honest question).

Furthermore (thanks to you bringing it up), we’ve already established that Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2 says that the only kingdom that shall “never be destroyed: and… not be left to other people” is the one that is cut out of the mountain without hands during the time of the kingdoms of the feet and toes of iron and clay (in the latter days).  And Jesus said, of the kingdom of God that was established on the earth in his day, that it would be “taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matthew 21:43), indicating that it would be “left to another people” and therefore subject to the idea that it was “destroyed”.

So your disagreements with these things don’t make sense Biblically or historically.  Biblical sources and early Christian sources establish that the apostasy happened just the way Paul described it.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Christ loves, nourishes, and cherishes his bride (Ephesians 5:25-32). He does not allow her to be 
destroyed.

Ephesians 5:25-27 says that Christ loves the church and gave himself for it, so that he might sanctify and cleanse it.  He redeems his church from the error of their way.  That’s the purpose of repentance.  That doesn’t mean those people wouldn’t fall away and that they wouldn’t change the church into their own organization.

The Lord has always considered his people to be his “bride”.  But he also refers to them as backsliding, playing “the harlot”, and they are forsaken by the Lord at times (temporarily).  See for example Isaiah 54:4-8, Jeremiah 3:14, 31:32, and Ezekiel 16:8-22.   Israel has gone in and out of apostasy several times.  The fact that the Lord’s people are his “bride” does not mean that they will never go into apostasy or be “forsaken” by the Lord for a time.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

As for your red herring above, CFR for where Joseph Smith “taught that the ten toes is the government of the United States”.

If you are thinking about Joseph Smith’s conversation with Robert Matthews in November 1835 (also known under the heading of “False Doctrines of Joshua the Jewish Minister” in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith), that’s part of a scribal summary of a long conversation between Joseph Smith and Robert Matthews, who was also known by the name Matthias and disguised himself initially in Kirtland by calling himself Joshua, the Jewish prophet.

The statement in the conversation where it says “The feet of the image are the government of these United States” is a quote from Robert Matthews (aka:  Joshua the Jewish Minister), not Joseph Smith.  And at the end of the conversation, Joseph Smith said: “I told him that his doctrine was of the devil, that he was in reality in possession of a wicked and depraved spirit”.   See Joseph Smith Papers - Conversations with Robert Matthews, 9–11 November 1835, and take note where the manuscript says “After dinner the conversation was resumed and Joshua proceeded to make some remarks on the prophesies, as follows:”, and the comment about Daniel’s prophecy is in the portion of Joshua’s remarks.

Yes. The following was the CFR for me saying Joseph Smith taught the ten toes are the government 
of the United States.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-b-1-1-september-1834-2-november-1838/92#full-transcript

Except it wasn’t Joseph Smith teaching that the ten toes are the government of the United States (it was Robert Matthews).

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Thank you for that clarification with the link you provided.  I see the record of Joseph saying 
to Matthews "I told him that his doctrine was of the Devil" later in my above link, to which you 
provided another link below.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/conversations-with-robert-matthews-9-11-november-1835/6#historical-intro

Yes, what Matthews taught about the ten toes was incorrect.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Now that we’ve dispensed with the red herring, what about Daniel 2:44?  How do you explain that?  Clearly the kingdom of God as described in Daniel 2 could not have been established at the time of the mortal ministry of Jesus, since his ministry was during the height of the Roman Empire (not the kingdoms of the iron and clay).

A seminary manual teaches the ten toes are a group of European nations.

And that’s pretty much what I had in mind when I said in my post on 03/03/2025: “the kingdoms of the feet and toes mixed of iron and clay (the modern kingdoms and states of the world that came about after the fall of Rome, having remnants of Roman influence [represented by the iron] among them).”

The European nations make sense as the feet and toes, since they are the successors of the Roman empire (and that’s what the dream that Daniel interpreted was about, successors to the regional powers).  But these nations also should include the middle eastern countries as well.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

This image is smashed at the Second Coming, not in 1830 and not by the growth of the LDS Church.   

Exactly right, the stone doesn’t strike the image until the Second Coming of Jesus. 

But you miss a very important point, which is the timing of when the stone is cut out of the mountain without hands (which was in 1830) and rolls forth in preparation for the Second Coming of Jesus:

Daniel 2:44:  “And in the days of these kings [which kings? The kingdoms of the feet and toes] shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall [after it rolls forth] break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.”

The timing of the events are as follows:

1. The kingdoms of the feet and toes [of iron and clay] are established after the Roman Empire [the iron legs] had fallen.
2. The stone (the kingdom of God) is cut out of the mountain without hands [it is done by God, not by the will of man].
3. The stone rolls forth, preparing the way for it to become a “great mountain” [a metaphor for the temple of God].
4. Jesus returns at his Second Coming, and "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." (Revelation 11:15)
5. The stone which becomes a great mountain [the kingdom of God] fills the whole earth.

Daniel 2:33-34: “His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands [it was cut out of the mountain without hands at the time of the feet and toes] which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay [after the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands], and brake them to pieces.”

Doctrine and Covenants 65:2, 5-6: “The keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth, and from thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth, as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth…. Call upon the Lord, that his kingdom may go forth upon the earth, that the inhabitants thereof may receive it, and be prepared for the days to come, in the which the Son of Man shall come down in heaven, clothed in the brightness of his glory, to meet the kingdom of God which is set up on the earth. Wherefore, may the kingdom of God go forth, that the kingdom of heaven may come”.

The stone is rolling forth.  And when Jesus returns, he will take over the kingdom.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Behind the kingdoms represented by Daniel's statue, there was a leader.

The head of Gold (Babylon)
The chest and arms of silver (the Mede-Persian monarchy)
The brazen belly and thighs (the Greco-Macedonian empire)
The legs of iron (Rome)
The last kingdom (which I believe is the EU). Not sure who this leader is or will be. Possibly 
the little horn.

One thing that the kingdoms had in common is that they exerted control over the land of Israel.  
I believe this last kingdom, made up of ten kings with one leader, will control the land of Israel 
in some form in the future before Christ comes and destroys it and its leader.

You’re thinking too literally again (using the word “literally” to mean taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory). 

There was never one single leader behind any of the kingdoms you listed (Babylon, Mede-Persian Monarchy, Greco-Macedonian Empire, or Rome), so why would you automatically assume there is literally one single leader over the literal ten kings of the ten literal toes?  (Those toes don’t smell right.)

Furthermore, Daniel’s prophecy doesn’t even emphasize the number of toes.  In fact, he always says the feet are included (as in Daniel 2:41, 42) and sometimes mentions only the feet (see Daniel 2:33, 34).

The book of Daniel talks about the "kingdom of men" (Dan 4:32, 25, 32, Dan 5:21), as if it were one kingdom, even though it is made up of many nations or kingdoms.  And the last "kingdom" is represented by two feet and 10 toes, indicating that many nations are included.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

But Revelation chapter 12 teaches that the woman (the church) would flee into the wilderness for a period of time, and therefore it wouldn’t be among men on earth during that time.  This is a reference to the time of apostasy of the church that was among men on earth during that time.

A few questions come to mind.

"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth 
the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him" (Revelation 
12:9).

"And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought 
forth the man child" (Revelation 12:13.

"And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, 
into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of 
the serpent" (Revelation 12:14).

"And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her 
to be carried away of the flood" (Revelation 12:15).

When was the dragon cast unto the earth?  

What is the time gap between verses 9,13 and verses 14-15?

Who is the man child that the woman [the church according to Joseph Smith] brought forth?

How was the church nourished and by whom for a long period of time that you say?

"And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which 
the dragon cast out of his mouth. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war 
with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus 
Christ" (Revelation 12:16-17).

Where is the dragon warring with the remnant? In the wilderness period or outside?

When did the dragon start warring with this remnant?

We’ve already discussed all these things, and you are asking the same questions you asked before and pretending like you’ve never read my answers.  And you never engaged my prior responses.  See my post on 07/16/2023, and then my post on 08/03/2023 where you ask the same questions you are asking above, and then again my post on 09/12/2023 where I reposted the same response again (because you asked the same questions over again), where I said:

Jesus said he saw Satan cast down to the earth before John ever wrote Revelation (likely in the beginning - see Luke 10:18).  From John's perspective, Satan began persecuting "the woman" immediately after Jesus was born, but Satan has been making war with God's people since the beginning.  Revelation chapter 12 depicts the woman going into the wilderness multiple times with Satan (the dragon or serpent) going after her to persecute her multiple times. 

Verse 4 says that the dragon stood before the woman which was about to be delivered to devour her child as soon as it was born, and verse 6 says the woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her.

Then verses 7 through 10 talks about the war in heaven and Satan being cast out down to earth (that's the flashback), and how Satan is "the accuser of our brethren", and verse 11 explains that those saints overcame him by the blood of the Lamb.

Verse 12 pronounces woes to the inhabitants of the earth, because the devil was cast down to earth.

And verse 13 depicts the dragon persecuting the woman after she brought forth the man child, and this goes with verse 4 which says that the dragon was there before she was to be delivered.  

And verse 14 depicts the woman going into the wilderness again (a repeat of what it says in verse 4).

And verses 15-17 depict the persecution of the saints of God by the dragon, with the dragon making "war with the remnant of her seed".  There is a "remnant" left, but they become martyrs as John said earlier in Revelation.

So it's not a chronological depiction of events in this chapter, since it repeats events to provide information about why the saints of God were persecuted and put to death after the time of John.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

The problem is that Paul isn’t speaking about “those” who are alive and remain at the coming of the Lord, he says “WE which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord”.  He preaches that he and those around him will be alive and remain until the Lord returns. 

As for readiness, pretty much all the prophets of God and apostles of Jesus Christ emphasized readiness, but how many of them included themselves and their listeners as being alive when Christ returns like Paul did?

They were hopeful that Christ could return in their days so they were told to be ready.

"We" does not necessarily have to include only those living in Paul's day.   The same message is 
for us today.  We can preach the same that Paul was preaching even if we who are live today don't 
live to see the return of Christ. The "we" means those who are living at the time of the Second 
Coming.

If you apply the same logic to the Great Commission, then it was only given to the Apostles for 
their time.

Of course, you can reinterpret those verses to be referring to us today (just like people do for the Great Commission), but that is reconstructing the statement to mean anyone who happens to be alive and remains to the coming of the Lord (which is a true statement even though that’s not the way Paul said it).  But Paul said “WE which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord” in the present tense.  He clearly understood the second coming to be an event that he and his readers would live to see.

Paul seems to have recognized the problem he created between the writing of his first and second letter to the Thessalonians, which is why he had to explain, in his second letter, why the second coming would not happen soon because of the apostasy.  I suspect he first learned (in between writing the two letters) that there would be an apostasy that must take place, because he was correcting the panic in the first two verses of chapter two of his second epistle:

"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us (i.e. Paul himself) as that the day of Christ is at hand." (2 Thessalonians 2:1–2)

The realization of the impending apostasy of the church and the man of sin being manifest at the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD (which began the work of the lawless one that would continue from that time up until the second coming of Jesus Christ) changed Paul’s thinking.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

As for the apostasy, you just said it was future, but you haven’t addressed how that’s possible given that Paul taught that “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work” beginning during his time.

Yes. Leaven was already making itself into the church.  It was present in Paul's time and continued 
to our present age.  It will continue until Christ returns.

Suggesting that Paul was merely talking about individuals going into apostasy in 2 Thessalonians 2 rather than the church itself falling into apostasy doesn’t work for the reasons explained earlier and below.  I’ll repost part of what I posted to you on 03/20/2025 from a different message thread:

There was individual apostasy and schisms from the church starting from the beginning. 

There were those who would "walk no more" with Jesus (John 6:66), the early schisms of those of "Apollos" or "Cephas" (etc., 1 Cor 1:11-13), those after Hymenaeus (1 Tim 1:20, 2 Tim 2:17), those after Alexander (1 Tim 1:20), those after Phygellus and Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15), those after Philetus (2 Tim 2:17), those after Diotrephes (3 John 1:9), and then the Nicolaitans (Rev 2:6, Rev 2:15). 

Consequently, when Paul wrote to the saints at Thessalonica and told them to “be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled… that the day of Christ is at hand” because there must come an apostasy first, it would do little to calm his troubled readers if he was only talking about the same kind of apostasy that they already saw all around them.  He obviously had a general apostasy in mind of a lasting duration, or it would make no sense for him to point out that the impending apostasy was one of the main reasons that the second coming of Christ would not come “soon”.

Paul taught that the general apostasy was already beginning (2 Thessalonians 2:7).  It was also around this same time period when Paul told the bishops at Ephesus that “after [his] departing” grievous wolves would enter into the church “not sparing the flock”, and the bishops themselves would become corrupt and draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:28-31).  Paul knew the apostasy was coming and that it would be a general apostasy that involved the replacement of the leadership of the church itself.

In Paul's epistle to the Galatians, he was quite surprised to learn that the saints at Galatia were "so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel", and that they were perverting the gospel of Christ (Gal 1:6-9).  If Paul had not been there to correct them, how would they know if they were in apostasy, or not?  Would they have considered themselves to be the real Christians?  Or how else could they possibly know?

Without Paul’s intervention, the people in the church at Galatia would likely go on believing they were orthodox if it wasn't for Paul's attempt at correcting them (and of course some of them might even try to say Paul was in the wrong). 

There must be a measuring stick to determine what is orthodoxy and what is heresy.  In New Testament Christianity, it was the apostles that made those calls by revelation from Jesus Christ.  It wasn't based on which group had the most power or by popular opinion or which group could interpret scripture better than another group.  There was no sense of a "do it yourself" church in those days.  It was Christ's church, and he was the head of it, and he directed it through revelation to his divinely appointed leaders.  And without the divinely appointed prophets and apostles, the church would be left to be “children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Ephesians 4:14).

So in the context of 2 Thessalonians 2, how exactly would it make sense for Paul to ease the "shaken in mind" or those "troubled" that the "day of Christ is at hand", if he was merely referring to individual apostasy that was already happening all around them?  He had to have something much bigger or different in mind, would he not? 

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

But I see the great apostasy occurring 
in the future with the worship of the beast.  Those who do so will be punished with severe plagues.

You keep saying that, but you have never shown where the verses in Revelation 13 or 19 indicate anything about the great apostasy that Paul was talking about in 2 Thessalonians 2:3.  Furthermore, Paul said that the mystery of iniquity was already at work in his day.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

You cannot have a total apostasy when Joseph Smith woman [the church] of Revelation 12 is being 
protected and nourished in the wilderness.

You misunderstand “total apostasy” if you think that the church going into the wilderness would disqualify that.  The priesthood keys were withdrawn and the apostolic leadership and direction in Christ’s church as an institution ceased to exist.  The church of Jesus Christ was withdrawn from among men. 

This doesn’t mean that there was a total loss of all truth or that nobody was ever led by the Holy Spirit during the apostasy (Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon teach otherwise).  But Christ’s church as he organized it ceased to exist among men.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

The church of Philadelphia (Revelation 3) is just one example of a church that was not destroyed 
("I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou 
hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name").

The indication that those of the church of Philadelphia remained faithful does not preclude the church from going into apostasy.  You are missing the entire point and aren’t seeing the big picture. 

Jesus remained faithful, but he was put to death.

The apostles remained faithful, but they were put to death. 

And Clement of Rome remained faithful, and he wrote and complained about the bishops, who were appointed by the apostles, being replaced by men taking over their office at the church of Corinth.  He wrote that the faithful bishops who had died were “blessed” because “they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them”.  And he continued, “But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour”.  And according to some, Clement was imprisoned by Roman Emperor Trajan, and was executed by being tied to an anchor and thrown into the sea.

And to the church of Smyrna, John had only good things to say about them too, but they were being persecuted.  John wrote to them, “Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.” (Revelation 2:10)

So, their options were either faithful martyrdom or unfaithful apostasy.  That’s why the book of Revelation has so much to say about the martyrdom of the saints of God (Revelation 2:10, 2:13, 6:9, 12:11).

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Skipping your unrelated diversion attempt and getting back to the language of Isaiah 44:6 (which is what I was talking about): Do you believe there is no other city other than Babylon, since Isaiah 44:6 uses the same language as these verses?

Isaiah 44:6 says “Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

Isaiah 47:8 “Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children”

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

Do you believe Babylon is the one and only city and there is none else besides Babylon, using the same logic you do for Isaiah 44:6?

The context for Isaiah 47:8 and Zephaniah 2:15 are different from Isaiah 44:6.  

"For thou [Babylon] hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and 
thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else 
beside me" (Isaiah 47:10).

...

That "I am, and none else beside me" is not saying that there is no other city besides Nineveh 
or Babylon.  It's a metaphorical way of Nineveh and Babylonia considering themselves great cities, 
greater than all others.

No, the meaning of “none else” and “beside me” for Isaiah 44:6 or Isaiah 47:10 are not at all different than Isaiah 47:8 or Zephaniah 2:15.  All of those statements are rhetorical constructs to emphasize the greatness of the subject matter in the context (either Ninevah, Babylon, or the LORD God of Israel).  You either need to believe Ninevah or Babylon to be the only city in existence (for ever and ever) to apply the statement equally, or you need to see it for what it is, a rhetorical devise for expressing how great is the God of Israel, the “God of gods”.

I point this out to show that you are cherry-picking verses and misusing the biblical language and are taking the verses out of context.  Anciently they understood that other gods existed (God is the “God of gods”) and had no problem applying the rhetorical language used in Isaiah 44:6, 47:8 and 10, and Zephaniah 2:15 to show the greatness of the God of Israel (or to show the extreme pride of Babylon or Ninevah). It’s part of the language of the Bible and should not be taken out of context try to read back into the verse a modern idea that didn’t exist in ancient times (i.e. modern monotheistic ideas).

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

But help me to understand you – what do you believe "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" (Isaiah 43:10) means?

If you really want to understand me, just read what I said to you about this many many times before, such as in my post on 09/16/2019 and my post to you on 09/21/2019.  Read the verse in context (not out of context).  Your reading of the verse takes it out of context and makes it say something totally illogical given the fact that God is an eternal being.

You don’t engage in anything I say, you just repeat yourself over and over and over.

Also read my post on 09/26/2020 (where I also chided you for not reading the posts I made to you a year earlier in 2019, and my post on 12/22/2022, where I also referenced this thread from June 21, 2011, and my post on 09/19/2023, where I posted Michael Heiser’s discussion about the denial statements of Isaiah 43:10 (and others), and my post on 09/20/2024 where I discussed the “before me” and “after me” statements in the verse, and my post earlier in this thread on 09/22/2024 where I gave an extensive breakdown of Isaiah 43:10 explaining its meaning in the context of the chapter, and my post to you on 10/20/2024 where I again explain how you are completely misinterpreting the verse in its context, and there are others.

Please READ my responses and ENGAGE them if you want to discuss any of this further. 

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

As for the word homoousious, it has already been documented that the Roman Emperor Constantine is the person who insisted that the word be inserted into the creed.  Prior to the First Council of Nicaea, the Gnostics were the first theologians to use the word homoousious (or at least before the Gnostics there is no trace at all of its existence).  Basilides seems to be the first Gnostic to use the word.  Athanasius was simply giving support to what the Emperor Constantine had inserted into the creed.

Homoousious has been interpreted in various ways like the terms "firstborn" and "salvation".

Homoousioius has been interpreted in various ways (although it is most often understood by mainstream Christians as “one in being” as I pointed out previously).

But why do we need to interpret it at all?  It’s not a biblical word.  It wasn’t taught by Jesus or the apostles.  It isn’t even a concept that is found anywhere in the Bible.  It’s just a word that was added into a creed by the Roman emperor Constantine, a creed that the government enforced as a requirement to be a “Christian” (which you say was the same church as Christ’s church that did not fall into apostasy).  That word changed the meaning of how the Father and Son are “one” and is at the very heart of the modern Christian doctrine of the Trinity. 

We don’t need to come up with new and unbiblical explanations for how the Father and Son are “one”.  The best explanation is the one that comes from the perfectly clear and more coherent explanation that Jesus himself gave as to how the Father and Son are “one God” right within the biblical texts:  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”.  Just believe they are one in the biblical way.

But why has the concept tied up in this word become a requirement of the Chistian faith, to believe in a “homoousioius” Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?  Why should a word that was added by a Roman emperor and later enforced as doctrine in the church by the Roman government be the core concept for our definition of God?  And since you believe Christ’s church never went into apostasy, you surely believe this as well, right?

And why do you suppose that the majority of Christians prior to the invention of the doctrine of creation out of nothing and prior to the first council of Nicaea (when Constantine added the word “homoousious” to the creed) believed and widely taught that God is the God over other gods, and that men become gods?

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

From Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual:  Chapter 4, Jesus Christ, the Son of God:

“As far as man is concerned, all things center in Christ. He is the Firstborn of the Father. By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state. As such he became, under the Father, the Creator of this earth and of worlds without number”.

Compare the above to what the early Christian Father Origen (185-254 AD) taught about Jesus Christ, the Son of God:

“And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.” (See Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, paragraph 2).

Now here is my question:   Doesn’t the quote from the Doctrines of the Gospel Student manual sound very much like what the early Christian Father Origen taught in the quote above?   How do you explain that?

Is the question clear to you now? 

What he said seems to align with what the seminary manual mentions, but that doesn't necessarily 
mean what Origen taught is true, nor does it imply that all Christians accepted it.

Yes, it is remarkable how much LDS doctrine aligns with the earliest Christian doctrines before the Greek philosophers and Roman Emperors started meddling with those doctrines. 

But other mainstream Christians did accept such doctrines as true. 

For example, Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220 AD):

“CHAP. II.--THE SON THE RULER AND SAVIOUR OF ALL. To know God is, then, the first step of faith; then, through confidence in the teaching of the Saviour, to consider the doing of wrong in any way as not suitable to the knowledge of God.  So the best thing on earth is the most pious man; and the best thing in heaven, the nearer in place and purer, is an angel, the partaker of the eternal and blessed life. But 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. This is the highest excellence, which orders all things in accordance with the Father’s will, and holds the helm of the universe in the best way, with unwearied and tireless power, working all things in which it operates, keeping in view its hidden designs. For from His own point of view the Son of God is never displaced; not being divided, not severed, not passing from place to place; being always everywhere, and being contained nowhere; complete mind, the complete paternal light; all eyes, seeing all things, hearing all things, knowing all things, by His power scrutinizing the powers. To Him is placed in subjection all the host of angels and gods; He, the paternal Word, exhibiting the holy administration for Him who put [all] in subjection to Him.”   (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 2)

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Joseph Smith taught and what the revelations teach is that Heavenly Father [the God of all worlds, which are without number] is the one Eternal God of all other gods (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32), and when we learn how to be Gods ourselves (through God’s plan as provided in the scripture), we become “kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before” us.  We are always subject to the one God and Father who is above all others.  And He isn’t made a king and a priest unto anyone else, since he is the one God who is “above all” (Ephesians 4:6).

You are doing this on purpose.  Focus on what has been said previously and progress the discussion instead of spinning around and around.  Do you really not have anything else to say?

I'm just trying to figure out if you believe Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother of our Earth 
were made priests/priestesses and kings/queens by the God above them and if Heavenly Father is 
above all beings who were formed into Gods long before he became God.

You really don’t seem to be trying to figure out what I believe (or what LDS believe), because you have been ignoring what I say and just repeat how you want to portray what we believe.

How many times have I corrected you and you just ignore it?  Be honest. 

The answers to what you are “trying to figure out” should be obvious from what I quoted previously in what you are responding to from my last post.  How can there be a God who made God the Father a priest if he is the “one Eternal God of all other gods”?  How can God the Father be made a king and a priest to another God if we become “kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before” us?

I’ll say more about this below.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

And that’s the very reason the early Christians WIDELY taught that men become gods, because they received that teaching from Jesus and the apostles.

I don't see any scripture which specifically shows Jesus and the Apostles using the words "man 
can become Gods" but I'm aware the LDS Church teaches that those led by the Spirit / the sons 
of God / the joint-heirs with Christ (of Romans 8:14-17) are exalted beings.

Actually, Paul, in Romans 8:14-17 was teaching that the joint-heirs with Christ become exalted beings (i.e. “heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” (Romans 8:17)).

But your demand that a reference be found saying the exact words, “man can become Gods” (like the early Christians clearly taught it as based on the teachings of the apostles) is like someone demanding you to show the word “Trinity” in the Bible to prove the idea of the Godhead. 

The concepts teaching that men become gods are clearly found in the biblical texts (and after all, God is a “God of gods”).

Here is one example (of many possible examples) of the widely taught early Christian doctrine that men become gods: “Then become pure in heart, and near to the Lord, there awaits them restoration to everlasting contemplation; and they are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Saviour.”  (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book 7, Chapter 10, paragraph 4).

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Teaching something external to the scripture does not necessarily mean it is true.

In early Christianity, there were several individuals and their adherents whose teachings were 
later deemed heretical by the mainstream church. Here are a few notable ones:

Marcion of Sinope: he taught that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God of the 
New Testament and rejected the Old Testament entirely. He created his own canon of scripture, 
which excluded all the Jewish scriptures.

Arius: he was a priest whose teachings about the nature of Christ led to the Arian controversy. 
Arius argued that Jesus Christ was a created being and not co-eternal with the Father, which led 
to the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

Nestorius: he taught distinctive ideas about the nature of Christ, suggesting a separation 
between Christ's divine and human natures. This led to the Nestorian controversy.

Pelagius: he taught that original sin did not taint human nature and that humans could choose 
God without divine aid. This led to the Pelagian controversy regarding grace and free will.

Valentinus: he was a prominent Gnostic teacher who offered a complex system blending Christianity 
with Gnostic cosmology.

Mani: Founder of Manichaeism, Mani merged elements of Christianity with Zoroastrian and Buddhist 
beliefs, proposing a dualistic view of the world.

Donatus: His teachings led to the Donatist controversy, which argued that the validity of sacraments 
depended on the moral character of the clergy who administered them.

Sabellius: He was associated with Modalism or Sabellianism, a belief that God is one person who 
manifests in three forms - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - rather than as three distinct persons.

Theodotus of Byzantium and Paul of Samosata (notable leaders of Adoptionism):  taught that Jesus 
was a mere man who was "adopted" by God at his baptism or resurrection, becoming the Son of God 
through divine adoption. This view denied the pre-existence of Christ and His eternal divinity, 
seeing him as a human being elevated to divinity.

These teachings reflect some of the diverse beliefs that emerged as early Christians sought to 
understand and define their faith. Over time, church councils and leaders formally declared many 
of these teachings heretical.

This is funny, really.  The question I asked was, “Why do you think the earliest Christians taught that men become gods but later they did not?”

In response, you gave me a list of well-known early Christian heretics as if this somehow disproves the orthodoxy of the mainstream Christians that actually taught that men become gods.  What would you say to someone who pointed to this list of individuals in the Bible who followed after Apollos or Cephas (1 Corinthians 1:11-12), or Hymenaeus (1 Tim 1:20, 2 Tim 2:17), Alexander (1 Tim 1:20), Phygellus and Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15), Philetus (2 Tim 2:17), Diotrephes (3 John 1:9), or the Nicolaitans (Rev 2:6, Rev 2:15), as a reason that we shouldn’t take the teachings of the apostles in the New Testament as true doctrine?  Get real.  That’s exactly the same logic you are applying to the early Christian Fathers here.

Here is a list of some of the early Christian Fathers that taught that men become “gods” or are deified (they are “exalted”), and taught that other “gods” exist in reality:

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

Why would you think that providing a list of known heretical teachers in early Christianity would discredit the orthodoxy of these mainstream Christian writers?  Where is the logic in that?

These Christian Fathers were not heretics (look up each one on this list of revered CHURCH FATHERS), and they were teaching mainstream Christian doctrines in their day.  None of them were considered heretics in their own lifetime.

And what they taught about men becoming gods was always based in scripture (the sources prove this to be true).  And since the early Christian teaching that men become gods was widely taught across a wide area and a wide range of early Christian Fathers, there is no question that this was a fundamental doctrine of early Christianity that came down to them from the apostles.

So again I ask (with clarification), why do you think these earliest MAINSTREAM Christians taught that men become gods and other gods exist in reality, but later Christians did not?

I can give you several reasons for the changes, and it has to do with doctrines that were invented later on (like the invention of the doctrine of God creating all things out of nothing – creation ex-nihilo, and the invention of the idea that the Father and Son are homoousious, one being, and the much much later doctrine of modern monotheism).

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

You clearly don’t understand LDS theology, nor do you engage any of my corrections to your misrepresentations of LDS theology.  You are obviously trying to do this on purpose.

I beg to differ. I am not doing this on purpose.

Regarding your list of attributes of God the Father:

1.    He is an eternal being (he has always existed)
2.    He has all power
3.    He has all glory
4.    He is all knowing
5.    He is perfect
6.    He rules over all other beings
But none of us have all power, all glory, are all knowing, are perfect, nor do we rule over all other beings.

Regarding #1, LDS theology identifies you and me as eternal beings. We have always existed.  But 
we are not eternally Gods.  A God will exist only when a being becomes a God.

As you well know the Bible never says that God has been God eternally.  We’ve already been through that.

Second, when a man goes to medical school and becomes a doctor, we don’t say a “doctor” begins to exist.  The “doctor” title is a title that someone earns, and it does not mean he suddenly becomes a separate entity.  He’s the same entity but has the title of “doctor”.

Similarly, a God does not come into existence when a person is exalted and has the title of “god” or “God”.  They are the same entity that they always were, but with added authority, power, and dominion. 

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

LDS President John Taylor taught, "What is [man]? He had his being in the eternal worlds; he existed 
before he came here. He is not only the son of man, but he is the son of God also. He is a God in 
embryo".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-john-taylor/chapter-1?lang=eng

Neither is that person (a God-in embryo) classified as the eternal God-in-embryo because that  
God-in-embryo is not a God-in-embryo before being born to heavenly parents - unless you believe 
all intelligences (spiritually born or not) are already Gods-in-embryo.

Let me give you another example.  Saying that Jack existed eternally and then became a plumber 
does NOT equal Jack eternally existed as a plumber.

You are repeating yourself.  We’ve already settled this.  Never does the Bible say God has eternally existed as God.  

And in your example, the fact that Jack has existed eternally and then becomes a plumber, it can rightly be said he is now an eternal plumber (because he is).  Your logic is flawed.  

Remember our discussion about “eternal life”?   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 how it works?  That’s the exact same flawed logic you are trying to use here.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Let's look at #6 now.

Will exalted Latter-day Saints rule over all of their future spirit children?  Yes.  How do we 
know?  It's on page 302 of the 1997 Gospel Principles.

3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children 
also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. 
They will be an eternal family.

The key phrase is "the same relationship".  In the future, as exalted beings, they will rule over 
their own spirit children and their own spirit children will worship them.  But in their non-exalted 
state currently, Latter-day Saints do not have the same relationship with the Father of God the 
Father.

For example, you worship God the Father.  But you don't worship the Father of God the Father, right?   
Why not?  Because he is not your God.

It all comes down to this:

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

In other words, all our worship and all our devotion is to the one God who is above all other gods.  Heavenly Father [the God of all worlds, which are without number] is the one Eternal God of all other gods (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32), and when we learn how to be Gods ourselves (through God’s plan as provided in the scripture), we become “kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before” us.  We are always subject to the one God and Father who is above all others.  And He isn’t made a king and a priest unto anyone else, since he is the one God who is “above all” (Ephesians 4:6).

Please engage what I’m saying and you’ll see how what you are saying doesn’t make any sense.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Then there's your interpretation of Revelation 3:9.  You believe members of the church of Philadelphia 
(who become Gods) will be worshipped by those of the synagogue of Satan.  Those of the synagogue of 
Satan are not even spirit children of the Philadelphians.

You start with a false premise, leading you to false conclusions.  Remember, it was Jesus who caused other men to worship those saints that Jesus exalted. This is a Bible teaching.

I’ll say more about this comment below.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Joseph Smith said "In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who 
mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being 
of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have 
imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away 
the veil, so that you may see" (History of the Church, volume 6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph 
Smith, 1938).

https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf

His theology seems clear to me.  

I think you said in previous replies that God the Father has always been God and he also "becomes 
God" in the sense that we are born to him as spirit children before coming to Earth, but this is 
not the meaning of Joseph Smith's words.  I'll say more about this when I discuss "ladders".

This proves you are doing this on purpose.  You tried to claim that I said the same thing (as the bolded portion above) last time, but I corrected you. And now you are trying to put words in my mouth yet again, even after being corrected.  Last time you said, “I think you said several times that Heavenly Father becoming God is only in the sense that he became our Parent.”

Remember, it was actually you (posting as marineland on 11/21/2022) that said, “According to what I understand from LDS teachings, Heavenly Father becomes ‘our God’ when ‘we’ are born as spirit children to him and his heavenly wife (or wives).”

You said that, not me.  Don’t put words in my mouth.

God has always been the “most high” God.  He has always been the God of all other gods.  He has always been the most intelligent of all spirits.  But he became our God when he proposed his plan for us to become like him, and we accepted his plan.  We made a covenant with him.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Joseph Smith also said, "If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John 
discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father 
also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without 
first being a son?  Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? 
And everything comes in this way".

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/109#historical-intro

His theology seems clear to me.

Maybe you see that as a true teaching but can't comprehend it or you reject it as a false teaching.

Or maybe I see it in the context of the revelations and everything else that Joseph Smith taught as important, and don’t interpret it the same as you are trying to do.

Read my responses and engage them, and perhaps you’ll begin to see why I am emphasizing the context.

I will discuss this quote in detail below.  

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Colossians 1:16 says nothing about angels (no surprise there).

In John 1:3 it says of Jesus, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

In other words, Jesus didn’t create things (or beings) that were not made.  Jesus did not create God the Father, for example, nor does it say he created the beings who are coeternal with God that were later given the job description of angels.

Colossians 1:16 says, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him”.

God the Father and the beings who are coeternal with God the Father are not “things”, nor were they created, and Colossians 1:16 doesn’t say that Jesus created them.

As for the “principalities, or powers” mentioned in Colossians 1:16, those are the governmental organizations (whether they be in heaven or on earth) that Jesus organized.  This is what Paul had in mind when he wrote to Titus, “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work.” (Titus 3:1)

It sounds like you believe Jesus is not a creator because he created no creatures. If all beings 
are eternal, then God the Father doesn't create any beings either.

On the contrary, speaking of Jesus, “The worlds were made by him; men were made by him, all things were made by him, and through him, and of him” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:10). I believe Jesus created all the creatures (he created all things “that were made”), he just didn’t create our spirits (which were not made). 

Remember how the Bible teaches of the creation of man?

Genesis 2:7 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground [body], and breathed into his nostrils the breath [spirit] of life; and man became a living soul.”

God formed man’s body from the dust of the earth, but the spirit of man came from the presence of God.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

From what I've been able to gather, the LDS specifics of how spirits are created in the premortal 
life are not fully revealed. The church teaches that we are spirit children of Heavenly Parents, 
but the process of spiritual creation isn't detailed in scripture or official doctrine. 

I'm surprised that you don't understand the real meaning of John 1:3. It means there are no beings 
created without Christ being their creator. Thus, all beings are created through Christ.  But I 
can grasp your perspective if you believe that beings are eternal and uncreated.

You say above that John 1:3 is teaching that “all beings are created through Christ”.  Do you believe John 1:3 is teaching that Jesus created God the Father?  If you believe that Jesus created God the Father then what you say above is consistent.  But if you don’t believe that Jesus created God the Father, then what you say above doesn’t follow.

In what you say above you even include the stipulation that “there are no beings created without Christ being their creator”.  Our physical bodies were created, but our spirits were not created (our spirits came from God, as I showed above).

John 1:3 is quite clear: “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

This verse explicitly excludes things (or beings) that were not “made” (like God the Father and our spirits which came from the presence of God).  Remember, we are the same kind of being as God (we are his génos or offspring), as the apostle Paul taught in Acts 17:28-29.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Right, because there is no such thing as the nature of angels apart from the nature of those individuals (spirits of men, mortal men, resurrected men) who are called to be angels (messengers of God).  It’s just a job description. So why try to make something up about “the nature of angels” when there is nothing to support it in the Bible?  Honestly, where do you think that belief came from?

Here are a few examples where wings for some creatures are depicted as the means of their flying.

Revelation 14:6 – "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting 
gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, 
and people".

Isaiah 6:2 reveals a winged creature, a seraphim (not an angel), flying. "Above it stood the 
seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his 
feet, and with twain he did fly".

Daniel 9:21 reveals the angel Gabriel flying. "Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man 
Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me 
about the time of the evening oblation".

So, do angels (defined as a type of creature) have wings?  Yes.

“Angels” are never “defined as a type of creature” by the Bible as you state above, nor does it ever say they have “wings”.

And you just contradicted yourself.  You said seraphim are not angels, yet they are the only creature you listed above that scripture says have wings (contrary to your opening statement, “Here are a few examples where wings for some creatures are depicted as the means of their flying”).  And for scripture to describe individuals “flying” does not necessitate that they have wings by any means. 

Both Daniel chapter 9 and Revelation 14 are part of a larger apocalyptic literary genre that characterizes the book of Daniel and Revelation.  The genre determines how we interpret those passages.  As the Got Question website says in the article, How should the different genres of the Bible impact how we interpret the Bible?:

“Prophecy and Apocalyptic Literature: The Prophetic writings are the Old Testament books of Isaiah through Malachi, and the New Testament book of Revelation.  Apocalyptic literature is a specific form of prophecy, largely involving symbols and imagery and predicting disaster and destruction. We find this type of language in Daniel (the beasts of chapter 7), Ezekiel (the scroll of chapter 3), Zechariah (the golden lampstand of chapter 4), and Revelation (the four horsemen of chapter 6). The Prophetic and Apocalyptic books are the ones most often subjected to faulty eisegesis and personal interpretation based on emotion or preconceived bias. However, Amos 3:7 tells us, ‘Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.’ Therefore, we know that the truth has been told, and it can be known via careful exegesis, a familiarity with the rest of the Bible, and prayerful consideration. Some things will not be made clear to us except in the fullness of time, so it is best not to assume to know everything when it comes to prophetic literature.”

I will add one comment regarding the explanation above.  The article says “the truth has been told” to the prophets already, with the assumption that everything we need to know about interpreting these books of prophecy and apocalyptic literature is already contained in the Bible (which of course the Bible does not even make that claim about itself, so that’s an unbiblical assumption already).  But the overall point is that you can’t simply take the books literally as you seem to want to do.

So, the book of Daniel and Revelation saying that an angel “flies” depicts that they have power to move and act, it is not intended to be taken literally (like seeing a literal beast with literal ten horns).

Other passages of scripture describe things that “fly” that don’t actually have wings, such as Isaiah’s “fiery flying serpent” (Isaiah 14:29, 30:6).  Jesus ascended into heaven, and he didn’t have wings.  It’s just not necessary for a person (an angel, a messenger of God) who has the power of God (or is taken up by the power of God) to need literal wings in order to “fly”.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

You said angels are not a type of creature but a job description, a role, like messenger.  Using 
that reasoning, then I propose that seraphim and cherubim are messengers (angels) of God with 
specific roles. 

One example is seen in Genesis 3:24, where cherubim are placed at the east of the Garden of Eden 
to guard the way to the tree of life. Another is Isaiah 6:1-7, which gives a vivid description 
of seraphim with six wings, attending to God and proclaiming His holiness. Isaiah's vision shows 
them as worshippers and messengers in God's presence.

Yes, an “angel” is a job description.  It isn’t just “like messenger” an angel is a messenger.  That’s what the word means in both Hebrew (mal’akh) and Greek (ángelos). 

And certainly, lots of things could be used as messengers.  Men have used pigeons and dogs as messengers for centuries, for example.

But “using that reasoning” (which is the accurate reasoning for the word angels/messengers) totally undercuts your entire argument regarding the supposed reality of a “nature of angels”.  You are just proving my point, which is that there is no such thing as a “nature of angels”.  (Do angels have the nature of dogs or pigeons too?)

In your post on 11/25/2024 you said, “I believe God is of a different nature than those whom he created. So God has a different nature from his angels.  Humans also have a different nature than angels. Humans are also of a different nature from plants and animals.”

You also said in your post on 02/14/2025, “If the offspring of God are the same kind of being as God is (a god), how is it that those who remain single (the same offspring of God) are now considered angels, and not gods?  Does this mean they transition from having the same nature as God to adopting the nature of angels?”

Those statements demonstrate your complete misunderstanding of how the Bible (and LDS thought) uses the word “angels”.  There is simply no such thing as a “nature of angels” that is unique from whoever (or whatever) is fulfilling that role or job description.

And now you are trying to put creatures that have wings (cherubim and seraphim) into the “angels” box just so you can support the modern Christian idea that angels have wings.  That’s just silly.  Seraphim are described by Isaiah as having six wings, whereas later Christian art depicts angels as having only two wings.  So which is it?

But the real problem is that the Bible always depicts angels of God as having the appearance as an average human being, so much so that some individuals who had angels appear to them in the Bible didn’t even realize they were conversing with angels of God until later on.  And never does the Bible refer to cherubim and seraphim as “angels”, and even if it did it would still not change the fact that there is no such thing as a “nature of angels”.

An “angel” is just a job description, so even Jesus who is a divine being can be called a messenger (angel) of God the Father. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5)

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

So, do some angels (defined as a job description or role) have wings?  Yes.

No, not as defined in the Bible. Those winged creatures are never called “angels” in scripture.  And neither are those who are given the job description or role of “angels” are ever described as having wings as you well know.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Remember, you were the one who told me about how the pagans would understand the Greek word génos when Paul was speaking to them.  In your post on January 2, you said:

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

So why don’t you tell me what they believed about a heavenly mother since you were the one who said they would understand it that way?

Do you think Paul was trying to deceive his pagan audience?  Several people converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ after Paul gave that speech (“certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them” - Acts 17:34).  Did these people believe what Paul taught them based on a lie?

I don't believe Paul was inferring a literal and physical (i.e. spiritual) birth with the 
assistance of a heavenly mother. Supposedly all spirit is matter, but more fine and pure than 
material matter (D&C 131:7-8).

In Paul’s teaching to the men of Athens, his use of the Greek word génos designated that we are the same kind of being as God.  It means we are literally the same kind of being.

And remember, you were the one who told me how his Greek audience would understand his use of the Greek word génos as “‘offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction for the Greek gods; like that which occurs between male and female.”

So why would Paul use that word if he knew that’s how his Greek audience would understand the word if Paul didn’t intend that meaning?  Was he trying to trick them into joining Christianity?

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Which of the pagan audience believed in a heavenly mother?

Remember, you were the one who told me about how the pagans would understand the Greek word génos when Paul was speaking to them.  In your post on January 2, you said:

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

So why don’t you tell me what they believed about a heavenly mother since you were the one who said they would understand it that way?

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Again, what’s the issue here?  You are just repeating yourself and not explaining why those things are mutually exclusive.  It’s not picking and choosing anything if nothing is incompatible with the views, they go together. There is a progression to what Paul taught, and a progression to what Joseph Smith taught, and they are completely compatible with each other. 

The apostle Paul taught that becoming an heir of God requires that we be led by the Spirit of God.  What if a person starts out being led by the Spirit of God but then abandons that path?  Are they still an heir of God?  Paul explains that as he continues, “if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him”.  That is clearly a conditional statement.  What if we don’t “suffer with him” by enduring to the end?  Are we still heirs of God?  Of course not.

And what exactly does it mean to be an “heir” of God?  An “heir” is a person inheriting and continuing the legacy of a predecessor. Those who are led by the spirit of God become the sons of God and are adopted and are heirs of God, joint-heirs with Jesus Christ.  So, what does an “heir of God” inherit?  That is exactly what Joseph Smith explained.  He said it means: “To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before.”

An heir is an exalted being in that theology you stated above.

That was my point.    

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds 
of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of 
God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit 
of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that 
we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; 
if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. 

These are the qualities of the heirs:

• They are led by the Spirit of God.
• They receive the spirit of adoption
• They are the children of God.
• They are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ.

Only the children of God (through faith) are the heirs. Those in the two lower divisions of the 
celestial kingdom, the terrestrial kingdom, and the telestial kingdom are not heirs (they do not 
receive the spirit of adoption).

So if that was really your point, that only those who are legally adopted as the children of God become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ to be “glorified together” with him, then we are in complete agreement.  Did you post Romans 8:14-17 just to prove Latter-day Saint doctrine?  Or what was your reason for bringing it up?

This is exactly what our scriptures teach (3 Nephi 9:17, Moroni 7:26, 48, Doctrine and Covenants 11:30, 34:3, 35:2, 45:8, Moses 7:1).

But you are mistaken if you believe that only those who are heirs of God are the only ones who are actually his children in a literal way (see below).

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

A child of God is an heir of God.

This is simply not true. 

A king can have lots of children, but there are rules that must be met by a child of a king to be an heir to his throne and to inherit his kingdom.  Consequently, there may be many children of the king, but only those who meet the conditions set forth by the king may be considered children of inheritance in the legal sense for his kingdom. 

So, a child of a king is not necessarily an heir of the king.

The same goes for children of God.  All mankind are the children of God in a literal sense, since they are the same kind of being as God (his “offspring”), and God the Father is the “Father of spirits” (all spirits).  But because of sin only those who receive Jesus Christ and covenant with him can become the “sons of God” in the legal adopted sense of receiving the inheritance.  There are rules attached to the inheritance clause as you pointed out in those verses from Romans 8:14-17.

So, a child of God is not necessarily an heir of God.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

And you've shown above that you believe an heir is an exalted 
being. That's why I was trying to make a point that you have many in LDS theology who won't be 
considered children of God because they are not heirs of God (i.e. exalted beings).  They did 
not receive the spirit of adoption.

That’s not just LDS theology, it’s exactly what Paul was teaching in Romans 8:14-17 so it should be part of all Christian theology too.

As I was saying above, there are rules attached to receiving the inheritance.  This is why Jesus taught us that we need to “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:44–45).  We are all God’s children in a literal sense, but we must behave like him so that we “may be” his children in the legal sense of inheritance.

This is basic LDS doctrine.  For example:

New Testament 2019:  Come, Follow Me – For Individuals and Families, p. 28:

“JOHN 1:12 What does it mean to ‘become the sons of God’?   Though we are all spirit sons and daughters of God, when we sin we become estranged or separated from Him. Jesus Christ offers us a way back. Through His atoning sacrifice and our obedience to gospel covenants, He “[gives us] power to become the sons [and daughters] of God” once again. We are born again and become reconciled to our Father, worthy of His eternal inheritance and heirs of all that He has (see Romans 8:14-18; Jacob 4:11).”

So why were you trying to point out what Latter-day Saints already believe?  I still don’t get your point.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

And isn’t that exactly what the Bible teaches about those who inherit all that God has?

“He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.”  (Revelation 21:7)

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” (Revelation 3:21)

“And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:  And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.”  (Revelation 2:26–27)

Does the book of Revelation contradict Paul by explaining what the heir actually inherits?

We have different opinions of what it means to "inherit all things".

What do you mean?  You don’t believe heirs of God “inherit all things” (Revelation 21:7) and they don’t sit with God in his throne (Revelation 3:21), or receive power over all the nations (Revelation 2:26-27)?

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

But based on what you said above, that would just mean that those in the two lower divisions of 
the celestial kingdom, the terrestrial kingdom, and the telestial kingdom are not the sons of 
God and God will not be their God because they did not overcome all things and they do not inherit 
all things.

Again, you totally misconstrue the meaning of Revelation 21:7. When Jesus says, “I will be his God, and he shall be my son” it is covenantal language, very much like Jeremiah 31:31-33:

“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:  But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”  (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

Does that mean that God is not the God over those who don’t covenant with God?  Or does that mean that those who do not covenant with God are not the offspring (génos) of God?  Of course not.  The point these verses are making is that when we make and keep covenants with God, we will be “his people” or “his sons” in the sense that we make God our mentor and we follow him and behave like him, and he will be our God in the sense that we worship and give glory to him, which may not be the same for those who don’t covenant with God.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

LDS theology does not teach that anyone gave God the Father his glory.  Rather, it teaches:

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

Do you believe God the Father has a Father like Joseph Smith taught?

See below.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Nice try.  Jesus taught that the worshiping of these individuals would happen at a future time (“I will make them to come and worship before thy feet”, which doesn’t mean they would mortals at that future time.

All of the promises that Jesus makes to the “seven churches” (the entire church) include the future promises to those who “overcome”, which includes men sitting with God in his throne in the same way Jesus sits on the throne with his God and Father.

Let's go down your path again.

So you believe the female members of the church of Philadelphia and other churches will be 
worshipped?  If no, show me where Jesus is only speaking about the men being worshipped?

Where are the members of the synagogue of Satan when they are worshipping at the feet of those 
Philadelphians and others who you believe will be formed into Gods?

You say, “Let’s go down your path again”, yet you totally ignored everything I said except for hyper focusing on my use of the word “men”.  I used “men” in that context as a synonym for mankind, humans.  I’ll rephrase what I said:

All of the promises that Jesus makes to the “seven churches” (the entire church) include the future promises to those who “overcome”, which includes humans (who overcome) sitting with God in his throne in the same way Jesus sits on the throne with his God and Father.

And the “seven churches” are representative of the entire church of Jesus Christ, with the church of Philadelphia being an example of situations that exist across the entire church.  See the Got Questions article, What do the seven churches in Revelation stand for?

And Jesus causing some humans to worship other humans isn’t limited to the “church of Philadelphia” (which represents many of the people within Christ’s church).  For example:

Isaiah 49:23: “And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.”

Isaiah 60:14: “The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.”

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Let's quote the original source material from the 1997 Gospel Principles.

Then I'll provide some question and answers.

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: "When you climb up a ladder,
you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you
arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you
must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles
of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed
through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all
to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to
learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave" (Teachings
of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348).

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph
Smith taught: "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know
for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man
like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth,
the same as Jesus Christ himself did" (Teachings of the Prophet
Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and
our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to
succeed even as he did.

Question: What is the way our Heavenly Father became God? 
 
Answer: He climbed his proverbial ladder until he arrived at the top.

Question: Does God becoming God mean only becoming God in the sense that he became a Father?

Answer: No. That's not what is taught here.  He cannot have eternal increase (spirit children) 
before progressing into a God first.

Question: Did God succeed?

Answer: Yes. He wants us to succeed even as he did when he became a God.

Question: Was it similar too for Heavenly Mother when she was formed into a God?

Answer: Yes. Both of them received their fulness of joy (page 14).  "We learned that if we placed 
our faith in him, obeying his word and following his example, we would be exalted and become like 
our heavenly parents. We would receive a fulness of joy" (page 15).

Question: Who's example did Heavenly Mother and Father follow?

Answer: Their Father God.

Question: You mean Christ's Grandfather?

Answer: Yes.

Question: What else did the Prophet Brigham Young teach about Heavenly Father?

Answer: The Father of God the Father created a world for him (Heavenly Father of Earth) and his 
brothers and sisters and provided a saviour for them.  The Father of God the Father made Heavenly 
Father (of Earth) heir of all things.

Question: How do we know this?

Answer: That's what New Era teaches.

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

[8] Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, p. 71.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1971/04/people-on-other-worlds?lang=eng

Finally.  I kept hoping you would bring this up, as I wanted to discuss these sources.  But again, you butchered up and misconstrued the sources.  (Why do you keep doing that?)

Where should I begin? 

The Kent Nielsen 1971 New Era Article

First, I’ll address your misuse of the quote from the New Era article to get that out of the way.  You quote from a 1971 article written to the youth by a BYU professor of Physics and Astronomy (Kent Nielsen) and attributed everything Nielsen speculated about in one of his paragraphs to Brigham Young based on a footnote provided right in the middle of the paragraph.  The reference is to Journal of Discourses, Volume 14, p. 71.  The only thing Brigham Young said in that discourse that pertains to what Kent Nielsen wrote in his article is related to this one sentence from Nielsen (also shown in red in your quote above):

“One among these, it is presumed, was a savior for them, and through him they obtained a resurrection and an exaltation on an eternal, celestial world.”

It is at the end of the sentence above where the reference to footnote 8 is placed (referring to Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, p. 71).

Below is the relevant portion of Brigham Young’s discourse where Nielsen gets his “presumption”. Referring to the debt incurred by the consequences of sin, Brigham Young remarks:

“He says to his children on this earth, who are in sin and transgression, it is impossible for you to pay this debt; I have prepared a sacrifice; I will send my Only Begotten Son to pay this divine debt.  Was it necessary then that Jesus should die?  Do we understand why he should sacrifice his life?  The idea that the Son of God, who never committed sin, should sacrifice his life, is unquestionably preposterous to the minds of many in the Christian world.  But the fact exists that the Father, the Divine Father, whom we serve, the God of the Universe, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Father of our spirits, provided this sacrifice and sent his Son to die for us; and it is also a great fact that the Son came to do the will of the Father, and that he has paid the debt, in fulfilment of the Scripture which says, ‘He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.’  Is it so on any other earth?  On every earth.  How many earths are there?  I observed this morning that you may take the particles of matter composing this earth, and if they could be enumerated they would only be a beginning to the number of the creations of God; and they are continually coming into existence, and undergoing changes and passing through the same experience that we are passing through.  Sin is upon every earth that ever was created, and if it was not so, I would like some philosophers to let us know how people can be exalted to become sons of God, and enjoy a fulness of glory with the Redeemer.  Consequently every earth has its redeemer, and every earth has its tempter; and every earth, and the people thereof, (p.72) in their turn and time, receive all that we receive, and pass through all the ordeals that we are passing through.”  ( Journal of Discourses, Volume 14, p. 71)

The bolded portion above in the quote from Brigham Young is the only part of his address that is referenced in Nielson’s article (pertaining to the presumption that “every earth has its redeemer”).  And you’ll notice that there is nothing in the quote from Brigham Young (above) that is remotely like anything you are attributing to Brigham Young.  Maybe there is some other reference to Brigham Young saying those things?  But here you only have Kent Nielson’s interpretation and speculation on the items in his article.

The Sermon in the Grove

Second, earlier in your post you quoted a brief segment from a sermon that Joseph Smith gave in Nauvoo in a grove east of the temple, on June 16, 1844, a sermon that is commonly referred to as the “Sermon in the Grove”.  The Kent Nielsen article also quotes a small portion of that sermon as well.

There are some potential issues with the accuracy of the notes taken during that sermon as I will explain below.  That sermon was not dictated to a scribe by Joseph Smith and checked for accuracy, as was the procedure for each of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants.  So the accuracy of what was said in that sermon depends entirely on the notes taken by people listening to the sermon, and the number of people taking notes (so the accuracy of the notes can be compared). 

With the “King Follet Sermon”, given by Joseph Smith at the general conference of the church on April 7, 1844, several people were taking notes. For that sermon, the Joseph Smith Papers site explains, “It seems that Joseph Smith intended this to be a significant discourse. Several of his listeners recorded accounts of the address contemporaneously, including three scribes from the President’s Office, making it the best recorded of his discourses. The reporters included Willard Richards, Wilford Woodruff, Thomas Bullock, and William Clayton. Because none of these individuals recorded the address stenographically, none of the accounts provides a complete record of what Smith said on that occasion. On 15 August 1844, the church newspaper Times and Seasons offered the first published account of the discourse, a version amalgamating Bullock’s and Clayton’s independent reports. Other amalgamated versions were produced later, including the now well-known version prepared in the 1850s for the “Manuscript History of the Church” by Jonathan Grimshaw, a clerk in the Church Historian’s Office.”

Note that even though the King Follet Sermon is said to have been “the best recorded of [Joseph Smith’s] discourses” because of the number of people taking notes, there is still a caution against assuming that the text is complete, since “none of these individuals recorded the address stenographically”, and therefore “none of the accounts provides a complete record of what Smith said on that occasion”.

Unlike the King Follet Sermon, our published text of the Sermon in the Grove relies primarily on the account of only one person, Thomas Bullock.  And to top things off, the sermon was given during bad weather (it was raining and the sermon had to be cut short due to the rain). There were two other people who took some notes (William McIntire and George Laub), but each of their notes barely fill a single small paragraph of information, and they both mention things said in the sermon that are not found at all in Thomas Bullock’s account (such as William McIntire’s reference to Joseph Smith quoting Psalm 82, and George Laub including a complete quote from Romans 8:16-17).  This evidence alone shows the limitations of how these sermons were recorded, and it lets us know that the Thomas Bullock account doesn’t give us the complete context.

Furthermore, there are other clear indications that Thomas Bullock did not record everything accurately.  During the sermon, Joseph Smith quoted from a portion of the book of Abraham (Abraham 3:19), but there were some key principles that are taught in Abraham 3:19 that the Thomas Bullock notes get wrong (he makes it say the opposite of what the verse says).  Joseph Smith knew the book of Abraham text well, so I think it’s highly unlikely that Joseph Smith said it wrong.  It is far more likely that Thomas Bullock heard it incorrectly and/or recorded it wrong.  (I’ll say more on this later).

We need to keep these things in mind when we are trying to interpret Joseph Smith’s teachings.  We should always give the personally dictated revelations the top level of authority and accuracy, since they contain revelations from God as given to his prophet and dictated carefully to scribes and reviewed afterward for accuracy.  And when reviewing other historical records, we need to carefully consider how the information was recorded and whether it comes to us first-hand (such as in a handwritten letter in the handwriting of the author), second hand or hearsay.  And we need to also consider the challenges in how the information is recorded, such as if it was done by someone taking notes in a public meeting (using a pen dipped in ink that needed to be re-dipped to continue the flow of ink), and how many different sources we have of the sermon that we can compare.  These are all reasonable considerations.

Furthermore, there is a distinct difference between what God gives to us through his prophet in a revelation and what his prophet may say in communication with others in casual conversation or even in a public speaking situation.  For example, sometimes Joseph Smith spoke of things in his sermons that he clearly affirmed he received by revelation, and in other situations Joseph Smith used his own human reasoning to work out how he interpreted some of the things that he had learned (and the Thomas Bullock notes indicate that Joseph Smith “reasoned” on the things included in the sermon at least three different times).

And finally, we always need to consider the context of what is said in a revelation or in a particular sermon.  If we cherry-pick quotes from the scriptures or from a sermon and try to interpret them out of context, we may very well go wrong in our interpretation.

Now let me explain how I view what Joseph Smith said in the King Follet Discourse along with our incomplete source for the Sermon in the Grove, but most importantly how these things fit with the revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, and Pearl of Great Price.

You already know part of my reasoning, because you have been working really hard to ignore it and to avoid engaging it.

The Head God of All Other Gods

The scriptures clearly teach that God is “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32).

Abraham 3:19 also teaches this: “And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.” 

God the Father has created “worlds without number” and is the God over all those worlds, and he is not merely “the Heavenly Father of our Earth” (as you like to mischaracterize it): “[W]orlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.” (Moses 1:33)

And in both the King Follet Sermon and the Sermon in the Grove, the primary focus for Joseph Smith was that Heavenly Father is the “head God” of all other gods.  In both sermons he taught this principle using Genesis 1:1.

This is what he said in the King Follet Sermon:

“I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of the creation in the Bible—Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith—in, by through, and everything else. Rosh—the head. Sheit—grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, ‘The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.’ That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council.”

Joseph Smith emphasized that God is the “head God” at least eight times in the King Follet Sermon, calling him “the head, the Father of the Gods”. 

In the Sermon in the Grove, Joseph Smith made the same point as follows:

“Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James' translators, ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.’ I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination; the Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, ‘In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods,’ or, as other have translated it, ‘The head of the Gods called the Gods together.’”

 Joseph Smith emphasized that God is the “head God” at least seven times in the Sermon in the Grove.

This same idea (of the head God above all other Gods) is also expressed in this statement from the King Follet Discourse:  “Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you”.

God the Father was a Divine Being Before He Became Man

In both the King Follet Sermon and in the Sermon in the Grove, Joseph Smith explained that during the earthly experience of Jesus, Jesus did the very same thing as what his Father did with respect to one important event: laying down his life and taking it up again.  Joseph Smith used John 5:19 as the basis for that teaching.

King Follet Sermon: “What did Jesus say?... The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again.”

He also taught in the same sermon that God the Father “was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did”.

Sermon in the Grove (from the Thomas Bullock notes), “I want you all to pay part[icu]lar attent[io]n. J. sd. as the Far. wrought precisely in the same way as his Far. had done bef[ore]— as the Far. had done bef— he laid down his life & took it up same as his Far. had done bef— he did as he was sent to lay down his life & take it up again— & was then committed unto him the keys &c I know it is good reasoning”.

Only a divine being could lay down their life and take it up again in the same way that Jesus did it (and humankind can do that only through the resurrection power of God).  Furthermore, if God the Father once “dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did”, then God the Father was divine before he dwelt on that earth, because Jesus Christ was fully divine before he became man.

Problems with the Thomas Bullock Notes

During the Sermon in the Grove, Thomas Bullock recorded Joseph Smith saying the following:

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

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

But Abraham 3:18–22 says the following:

• 18 … if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.
• 19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.  ….
• 21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen.

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

Also, above you quoted from this part of the Sermon in the Grove as follows:

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Joseph Smith also said, "If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John 
discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father 
also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without 
first being a son?  Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? 
And everything comes in this way".

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/109#historical-intro

You linked to the “History, 1838–1856, volume F-1 [1 May 1844–8 August 1844]” source for this, but you will notice that that prepared for publication version of the Sermon in the Grove was “created 9 Apr.–7 June 1856 and 20 Aug. 1856–6 Nov. 1856”, and is in the “handwriting of Leo Hawkins and Jonathan Grimshaw” as an extrapolation from the Thomas Bullock notes.

In relation to the quote above, you asked me this question: “Do you believe God the Father has a Father like Joseph Smith taught?”

Your question hinges on one important phrase, “like Joseph Smith taught”.  What exactly did Joseph Smith teach that day?  Did Thomas Bullock record all his words correctly?  Did Thomas Bullock leave out some important context that could change how we interpret what Joseph Smith said?  Or given the context of that sermon that Bullock did include, how should we interpret what he wrote down?

First of all, I would caution against drawing any hard-set doctrinal conclusions from this sermon at all, considering the incomplete and inaccurate source of the sermon.  But laying that aside, I believe it is clear that Joseph Smith was teaching that God the Father is the “Most High” God, the head God of all other gods (because he also taught the same thing in the King Follet Sermon), and it is also clear that he taught that God the Father was a fully divine being at the time when he was once a man “the same as Jesus Christ himself did”, and these ideas are not only found within the recorded text of the Sermon in the Grove, but in all of the other teachings of Joseph Smith.  Consequently, we should try to understand what Joseph Smith intended to say about God the Father having a Father (if that’s what he really said) within that clear framework of teaching.  And you keep wanting to leave that part out.

I realize that some Latter-day Saints interpret the published version of that sermon as teaching that there really is no such thing as a Most High God, which is contrary to Joseph Smith’s teachings.  The article written by BYU Physics professor Kent Nielsen, that you quoted above, follows that line of thinking where he says, “Long before our God began his creations, he dwelt on a mortal world like ours, one of the creations that his Father had created for him and his brethren… Then they gained the power and godhood of their Father and were made heirs of all that he had, continuing his works and creating worlds of their own for their own posterity—the same as their Father had done before, and his Father, and his Father, and on and on” (the statement that you mistakenly attributed to Brigham Young).

But that interpretation contradicts Joseph Smith’s teaching that God the Father is the head God of all other Gods and does not allow for the fact that God the Father was a divine being prior to dwelling on an earth, and thus he would have created his own world, “the same as Jesus Christ himself did”.

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

Since Kent Nielsen’s interpretation clearly contradicts the revelations and Joseph Smith’s teaching that God the Father is the head God of all other Gods, I can’t follow that line of reasoning.

And the Church does not have an official interpretation of the things recorded in the Thomas Bullock notes of the Sermon in the Grove.

Now let me address the “climb up a ladder” statement.  Joseph Smith taught that even though God the Father is the head God and “more intelligent than they all”, he still “worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling”.  He established his kingdom and provided a way that others may progress the same way that he did. 

God knows all things that are logically possible for him to know, but there are some things that can only be learned through experience.  Pain and suffering are examples of things that can only be known through experiential learning. You can’t explain what severe pain is to someone else who has never experienced severe pain, they need to experience it to fully know what it is.

The Bible is clear that Jesus had to go through the experience of mortality for this very purpose.  The scriptures tell us that Jesus, “grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him (Luke 2:40), and he “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” (Luke 2:52).  And, “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;  And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Hebrews 5:8-9).

And Hebrews 2:17–18 tells us (of Jesus), “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.”

Jesus lived a sinless life, and since Jesus did what he saw his Father do we know that God the Father also lived a sinless life.  A person doesn’t need to experience sin to know what sin is. But a person can’t really know what pain or suffering is without experiencing it to some degree or another. 

It is only in this way that the 1997 Gospel Principles manual says that “This is the way our Heavenly Father became God”.  In quoting Joseph Smith, the manual says, “He was once a man like us;… God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did”.  So, God the Father became the God he is by going through what he asks us to do.

The manual continues, “Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as he did.”  (Gospel Principles, 1997, p. 305). 

Our Heavenly Father knows these things because he had similar experiences to us, just like our Savior Jesus Christ went through mortality to “learn… obedience by the things which he suffered”.  They are only asking us to go through the same process they went through so that we can learn all that they know through our mortal experience.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Was Jesus God before he dwelt on earth?  Of course he was.  Who created the earth that Jesus was born as a man upon?  Jesus did.  So why should we think anything different for God the Father?

Who gave spirit birth to God the Father before he would progress to have enough power to create
any worlds?

Nobody.  Joseph Smith never taught anything about spirit birth (that was reasoned out later on, nor has that ever been defined), and God the Father had been creating many worlds prior to when he once dwelt upon an earth, assuming that what Jesus did was mirroring what God the Father had done before (remember Moses 1:33, “worlds without number have I created... and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten”).  And Joseph Smith taught that God the Father is the Most High God, the head God of all other Gods.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

I've made this clear.  Joseph Smith never said that Heavenly Father was a man before he became God.  Joseph Smith didn't provide the sequence of events in such a way to suggest he was a man first, and God later.

Brigham Young taught a man (currently God the Father) and his other brothers and sisters were 
not Gods before they became men and women on the worlds they grew up on. They would later progress 
into becoming Gods. I referenced the 1971 New Era article earlier.

Nope, those were Kent Nielsen’s words, not Brigham Young’s.  

You keep ignoring what I'm posting and keep trying to divert to something else.  Are you reading my responses this time?  Will you actually engage them?  If not, then there's no point to any of this.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Regardless of whether you believe the LDS Heavenly Father was already God before he was a man or 
that he was first a man who would later become a God, 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" (History of the Church, volume 6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1938).

https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf).

His teaching covers both options: the LDS God is not God from all eternity.

That’s like saying the Christian God was not God from all eternity because Jesus once was a man who dwelt on an earth.  

Joseph Smith was teaching that God the Father is the Most High God for all eternity, but in addition he was once a man on an earth (same as Jesus Christ was) and that he became our God in the sense that he presented a plan to us (eternal spirits) and we accepted his plan to follow him so that we could progress to be like he is.
 

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

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

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

Right.  And the Father of God the Father instituted laws whereby his children (Heavenly Father 
and Mother of our Earth and all their brothers and sisters from their worlds) could advance to 
Godhood.

That’s impossible, since God the Father is the “head God” and the “God of all other gods”, as Joseph Smith and the revelations teach us.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

In other words, all the Gods “before us” (compared to our place and time right now) became “kings and priests to God”, the one God who is above all others and is the God of all other gods.

Brigham Young taught that the God of God the Father made him and Heavenly Mother a priest and 
king along with some of the other brothers and sisters of Heavenly Father and Mother.  I referenced 
this earlier in the 1971 New Era.

Nope, those were Kent Nielsen’s words, not Brigham Young’s.

Now will you engage what Joseph Smith actually taught?  All the Gods “before us” (compared to our place and time right now) became “kings and priests to God”, the one God who is above all others and is the God of all other gods.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

So all Gods are subject to the one God and Father of all who is above all.  How can they possibly be made kings and priests to God if they became Gods “before the LDS Heavenly Father became a God” as you claim?

Engage what I’m saying.  Show that you are trying to further the discussion instead of spinning around and repeating yourself. 

The way I see it is that the LDS Heavenly Father of our Earth was not a God before he became a 
spirit child of his heavenly parents.  He became subject to his Father (i.e. Jesus' Grandfather).

Sorry to keep repeating myself several times but I don't know if you believe Heavenly Father of 
our Earth has a Mother and Father God himself or not.

• “LDS Heavenly Father of our Earth”  - Completely wrong, see Moses 1:33.
• “was not a God before he became a spirit child of his heavenly parents” – Joseph Smith never taught any such thing
• “He became subject to his Father (i.e. Jesus' Grandfather).” – Was Jesus subject to his earthly father, Joseph, when he was a child?  How about his grandfather?
• “Heavenly Father of our Earth” – Completely wrong, see the first bullet point.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

When I read that Latter-day Saints can become (they shall be) gods (really Gods), I see that as 
synonymous with being made (being formed) into Gods.

I know, you are trying very hard to change the meaning to try to make it seem like it is contradicting the Isaiah verse that you take out of context, trying  to make it sound like Isaiah is saying that God is illogical since he says there is a “before” and “after” a time that God existed, whereas the actual context of the verse explains what God means by “before” and “after” perfectly.

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Now a few more questions:

Do you believe what the apostle Paul taught about revelation?

The apostle Paul taught: “For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.  And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost” (1 Thessalonians 1:5-6).   He also wrote, “my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”  (1 Corinthians 2:4–5)

Do you believe these things?

Yes.

I figured as much (it’s the Bible, after all).  

But based on those references I quoted above (1 Thessalonians 1:5-6 and 1 Corinthians 2:4-5), does that mean you also see a difference between the way the apostles taught in the New Testament, where the truth of what they taught was manifest to those who were hearing or reading their words by the power of revelation and the Holy Ghost (the power of God), as compared to the way it is done in many of the Christian sects of modern times that argue back and forth against other denominations over the meaning of their own pet interpretations of scripture, wherein they claim that their interpretation is the correct one?

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Also from what the apostle Paul taught in 1 Corinthians chapter 2.  Do you believe that God can reveal to us by the Spirit the “deep things of God”?  Where is the “Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God” in your view?  This is the power of God, is it not?

He emphasizes that true understanding comes not through the wisdom of the world but through the 
Spirit of God. Specifically, in verse 10, Paul explains that God reveals these profound truths 
to us through His Spirit, which "searcheth all things." Verse 12 further clarifies that we have 
received the Spirit of God so that we might know the things freely given to us by Him.

Good, you agree.  

So continuing revelation is not only biblical, continuing revelation is essential to Christ’s true church.  Do you agree?

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

This is indeed the power of God at work. The Spirit acts as a guide and teacher, helping us to 
comprehend spiritual truths that might otherwise be beyond our understanding. It's a testimony 
that our connection with the divine is deeply personal and facilitated by the Holy Ghost, which 
is a key principle in the gospel and our faith.

God's Spirit can enlighten our minds and bring peace, guidance, and understanding in a world full 
of noise and confusion. Embracing this gift and seeking spiritual insights through prayer and study 
can certainly bring us closer to the divine truths God wants us to know.

So what about God revealing to us “the deep things of God”, as Paul taught?  As far as I can tell you don’t seem to believe in continuing revelation about God himself and prefer to accept post biblical teachings about God that have come down through tradition.  Why is that?

If you believe everything that we need to know about God is contained in the Bible and that the canon of scripture is closed, are you not “denying the power thereof”, as Paul warned against in his epistle to Timothy?  Is that what you believe?

On 4/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

On 3/29/2025 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

What do you believe the apostle Paul had in mind when he said, in the last days, there would be those "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof"?  (2 Timothy 3:5)

This scripture speaks about people who may seem pious or religious on the outside but are missing 
the true, transformative power of godliness in their lives. It highlights a disconnect between 
outward appearances and genuine inward conviction or action.

The phrase "form of godliness" might refer to things like participating in religious rituals, 
attending church, or using religious language—but without personal conversion, sincere faith, 
real love, or the spiritual strength that comes from actually living the gospel and relying on 
the Spirit. The "power thereof" points to the transformative power of God and the Holy Spirit—the 
kind that truly changes hearts and lives—and that's an essential part of true discipleship.

Paul's words encourage us to take a personal look at our own discipleship. It's a call to make 
sure our faith is alive and active, and that we're really letting God's power work in us. That
means being sincere and authentic in how we live our beliefs, and allowing the gospel of Jesus 
Christ to shape our thoughts and actions every day. It's a powerful reminder to seek the Spirit 
and embrace the full power of Christ's Atonement in our lives.

It’s also a powerful reminder that Christ’s church is built upon “the power” of God that comes through revelation about “the deep things of God”, even “hidden wisdom”, is it not?

And if the churches of today believe in a closed canon of scripture and deny continuing revelation, aren’t they fulfilling what Paul warned us to “turn away” from in 2 Timothy 3:5, because they have “a form of godliness, but [are] denying the power thereof”?   Wouldn’t that be true apostasy from Christ’s church?

What does your church believe about continuing revelation?

Edited May 27, 2025 by InCognitus

[Pyreaux]

I googled key words (as google will search the forum better than the forum search) and found this. Was this deleted thread?

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

I googled key words (as google will search the forum better than the forum search) and found this. Was this deleted thread?

Yes!  Skylla was able to recover it, fortunately.  In a couple of weeks I'm going to respond to theplain's latest post (in the other thread) in this thread to keep things in context (I'll be out of town for a while).

[Calm]

As much as I love the idea that you guys are blowing my little occasional epic posts out of the water for length, when this page loads up, it crashes a few times.  Maybe in the future break the lost posts up some to help?

[InCognitus]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

As much as I love the idea that you guys are blowing my little occasional epic posts out of the water for length, when this page loads up, it crashes a few times.  Maybe in the future break the lost posts up some to help?

Are you accessing this page on your phone or computer?  It lags a bit for me (on my computer), but it doesn't crash.

Also, your post and this post will help, because once there are 25 posts on page 6 it will push it to page 7!   

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Are you accessing this page on your phone or computer?  It lags a bit for me (on my computer), but it doesn't crash.

Also, your post and this post will help, because once there are 25 posts on page 6 it will push it to page 7!   

My iPad.  Which is a bit old (for tech).  It doesn’t always crash.  I need to be patient and not scroll right away, that helps.

Edited June 23, 2025 by Calm