Ephraim, the birthright, and the gathering

[InCognitus]

This is part 1 of a response to the post by @theplains on June 20, located here, which was a response to my post dated 05/26/2025.  I'm posting my response here to put us back into the original folder.

I'm also going to divide my response to make it a little more manageable, so there will be more than one part to this.

PART 1

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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?

 I believe that even non-religious Israelites can know they are descendants of Abraham through 
Isaac.  Accepting God's covenant and being faithful is not necessarily a prerequisite to someone 
knowing their lineage. I know that my lineage is Italian but I don't know if my Grandfather or 
Great-Grandfather was an atheist, Roman Catholic, or some other faith.

Accepting God’s covenant is not a prerequisite for someone knowing their lineage, but ultimately it is a prerequisite for the gathering of Israel and participating in the final land covenant promises.

How do you propose that non-religious Israelites who were scattered among the nations and intermarried in those nations and were integrated into the genetics and cultures of those various nations will know they are descendants of Abraham through Issac?  And what about the Ephraimites who were told that they would become a “multitude of Gentiles” (nations)?  

Get realistic here.  Point out where the people of Reuben, Simeon, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Manasseh, and Ephraim are right now and explain how they would know that they are of that lineage.  How would anyone really know without God’s intervention?

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

So why would they be taught by their parents who they are?  Why would they keep a tradition of a God they have rejected?

They may not have a tradition of the God they rejected but I assume a child would know his heritage 
from his father.  For example, I only know I am of Italian blood because my father comes from Italy.  
This is despite me not knowing what faith, if any, my previous ancestors had.

Your comment above demonstrates the entire problem with your assumptions.  What exactly is “Italian blood”?  The fact that a parent came “from Italy” doesn’t describe the person’s actual genetic ancestry at all, and intermarriage totally messes up your assumptions.

According to the biblical account, the ten northern tribes of Israel were scattered in approximately 720 BC, or roughly 2,745 years ago.  The rest of the tribes of Israel were scattered in 70 AD, or 1,955 years ago.  

And according to the Wikipedia article on “Italians”:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italians

“The Italian peninsula was divided into a multitude of tribal or ethnic territory prior to the Roman conquest of Italy in the 3rd century BC. After a series of wars between Greeks and Etruscans, the Latins, with Rome as their capital, gained the ascendancy by 272 BC, and completed the conquest of the Italian peninsula by 218 BC.”

So there was ample time and opportunity for various descendants from the tribes of Israel to migrate to the Italian peninsula before or during the 3^rd century BC (or even after), and they may have in fact been among the “multitude of tribal or ethnic” groups that occupied that area, or they may have intermarried with those groups prior to or during the Roman occupation or intermarried with the Greeks, Etruscans, Latins, or Roman individuals.

Thus, when you say your “father comes from Italy”, what does that mean exactly with respect to genetic ancestry?  Do you know without a doubt that none of your ancestors came from any of the various scattered tribes of Israel because for over 2,700 years they kept meticulous genealogical records?  Or how do you know, or how would you know any of your genetic ancestry earlier than a few generations?   Be realistic.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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?

There are two types of gathering: a] spiritually into the body of Christ and b] gathering to their 
lands of inheritance.

We’ve already discussed this many times.  Regarding the gathering of Israel, you keep forgetting the process that the Lord details in scripture for the gathering.  Isaiah 11:11 says that in the “day” the Lord sets up an “ensign” to the nations, “that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people”.  And in verse 12 it says, “he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”

For some reason you seem to think that this means the Lord will take them directly into the lands of their inheritance without some intermediate “gathering”, but neither the context of Isaiah 11:10-16 or the comparison of how the Lord recovered the remnant of his people the first time (when they were brought out of Egypt at the time of Moses) indicate that happening.

In the book of Exodus, we find the Lord assembling his people first and bringing them to belief in him and his covenant:

Exodus 3:16: “Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt”.

Exodus 4:27-31: “And the LORD said to Aaron, Go into the wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, and met him in the mount of God, and kissed him.  And Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD who had sent him, and all the signs which he had commanded him.  And Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the children of Israel:  And Aaron spake all the words which the LORD had spoken unto Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people.  And the people believed: and when they heard that the LORD had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped.”

From that point Moses (the prophet of God) led Israel to Mount Sinai (the LORD’s temple) where the people of Israel made covenants with God (Exodus 19:5-8, 24:3) and were sanctified and prepared to enter into God’s presence (Exodus 19:10-11, 22) and then entered into the presence of God by going up with Moses on the mountain to see the God of Israel (Exodus 24:9-11), and the LORD said “I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God” (Exodus 29:38-45).  It was not until several years later that they were led into the lands promised to them in the Abrahamic covenant.

So the way that the Lord recovered the remnant of his people the first time is as follows:

A.    The people of Israel are called out the physical and spiritual bondage of Egypt
B.    The people of Israel are taught the word of the Lord.
C.    The people of Israel believe the words of the Lord and are physically assembled and led in their worship of the Lord.
D.    The people of Israel covenant with God and are sanctified.
E.    The people of Israel covenant with God on Mount Sinai (the Lord’s temple)
F.    Israel then goes forward to the lands of their inheritance.

The way the Lord is now recovering the remnant of his people the “second time” is the same pattern as the first time, as follows:

A.    The people of Israel are called out of spiritual bondage (figuratively Egypt).
B.    The people of Israel are taught the gospel of Jesus Christ.
C.    The people of Israel believe the words of Christ and are physically assembled in their places of worship.
D.    The people of Israel covenant with God and are sanctified, and come to know who they are.
E.    The people of Israel go to the house of the LORD (in one of God’s temples) and make covenants with him.
F.    Israel then goes forward to the lands of their inheritance.

In your version, you seem to go from A to F with no explanation on how they figure out who they are (to begin with) and how they get there in between.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

I don't believe in a special gathering of first literal or spiritual Ephraimites or Manassehites 
to begin a restoration.

Ephraim and Manasseh are the ones who “push the people together to the ends of the earth”.  They can’t do that unless they return to God’s covenant first and come to recognize who they are so that they can assist in getting God’s people together again.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.

Jeremiah 16:15 is a reference of them being gathered to their land of inheritance from where they 
have been scattered to.  

"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" (15).

This has nothing to do by servants specifically identified as being of Ephraim's or Manasseh's 
lineage.  The time frame is also not specified as being after 1830.

Remember, you made the claim in your post on 04/21/2025  that “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.”  But Jeremiah 16:14-17 clearly contradicts that claim.

The point of Jeremiah 16:14-17 is that the Lord says he will prepare his servants (referred to as “fishers” and “hunters” in the verses).  He will “send for many fishers” and “send for many hunters” so that they can “hunt” and “fish” and he will send them out to specifically find and gather the scattered lost tribes of Israel. 

And as I have previously stated, the gathering will eventually lead to them being able to return to the lands that were promised to the seed of Abraham (following the same pattern as the “first” gathering).  You pointing out that they will also eventually be gathered to their lands is just a distraction to the fact that the Lord searches out these lost tribes specifically through his servants he calls for that purpose. 

And as Deuteronomy 33:17 says, this is done through the lineage of Joseph where Moses blessed Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) to "push the people together to the ends of the earth".  So we already know that Ephraim and Manasseh are involved in that process.

We’ve already discussed and settled this a long time ago in this thread.  See my post on 02/25/2024, and on 07/26/2024.

Who are these servants (the “hunters” and “fishers”) that the Lord sends for to “hunt” and “fish” for the tribes of Israel specifically?  Protestant Christians?  Catholics?  Government officials?  Who are they?

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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?

No.  But we may find out in the future.  

I don't believe that an LDS elder can give a patriarchal blessing to one of these people and tell 
them that they are a literal descendant from either this or that tribe.

You don’t believe this because you are opposed to the Lord’s restored church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  But do you believe the Lord knows who these people are and one way he could have these people recognize their lineage is to reveal it to them through a blessing like the blessing that father Jacob gave to each of the tribes of Israel?  Or are you opposed to any kind of revelation from God at all?

How else are these people going to know who they are?  Will it be from the meticulous genealogical records that you seem to believe these people have been keeping for the last 2,700 years?  Or how?

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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".

They are sought out to be gathered to the land that God gave to their fathers.  This is literal 
Israel, not spiritual Israel.

Yes, they will be gathered to the land that God gave to their fathers.  And it is literal Israel that I’m talking about.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Also, these servants are not initially and literally from Ephraim 
or Manasseh either.

Where does the Bible say that these servants in Jeremiah 16:14–17 are NOT literally from Ephraim or Manasseh?

And who are these servants (the “hunters” and “fishers”) that “hunt” and “fish” for the tribes of Israel specifically?  Protestant Christians?  Catholics?  Government officials?  Telemarketing people?  Gallup Poll employees?

I know who they are, they are the missionaries and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the ones the Lord has called specifically to gather Israel, and that’s why it is one of the priorities of President Nelson.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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). "

The priesthood is not one of the blessings that falls on the firstborn son or daughter of each 
of all the families within all the tribes of Israel.

Not now, but it certainly was that way prior to Israel breaking their covenant with God on Mount Sinai.  We already discussed and settled this.  See my post on 03/16/2024, where I provided ample evidence that the firstborn son was given a right to the priesthood in ancient Bible history prior to Israel breaking the covenant that God made with them on Mount Sinai.  Quit trying to reboot the thread without dealing with things that we have already discussed.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

The passage that you refer to is not depicting what you believe.

While Judah would be the leader of Israel, the superiority of Ephraim over Manasseh was also 
confirmed.

Matthew Henry's commentary says, " It appears from the Ephraimites' contests, both with Gideon 
(Judges 8:1) and with Jephthah (Judges 12:1), that they were a warlike tribe and fierce. Yet we 
find the children of Ephraim, when they had forsaken the covenant of God, though they were armed, 
turning back in the day of battle  (Psalms 78:9; Psalms 78:10); for, though here pronounced strong 
and bold as unicorns, when God had departed from them they became as weak as other men".

Commentaries are manmade and can be short sighted, such as the older commentaries you quoted earlier in this discussion topic saying that they (the commentary writers) believed the gathering of Israel would not happen until Christ returns, even though we see it already starting to take place in our day.

Without the hindsight we have now, a commentary written in 800 BC might interpret the blessing that Jacob gave to Judah in Genesis 49:8-12 as referring to David and the rule of Judah in Judea at that time. But now we can see that there are prophetic references to Christ in those promises.

The same thing applies to Joseph (through Ephraim and Manasseh) in Deuteronomy 33:13-17.  A short sighted person might see the pushing the people together to the ends of the earth as referring to the conquests described in the book of Judges alone.  But the promised blessings of Jacob and Moses extend far beyond those times.

And, as I mentioned previously in my post on 07/26/2024, the early Christians viewed these verses in a way that pertained to the salvation of the people, with Christ working through Joseph in the last days.  You disagreed with their interpretations, but nevertheless, it was a view held by the early Christians.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

And Zechariah 10:6-12 shows that the Lord prepares the house of Joseph and Ephraim 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.

Zechariah 10 speaks of the restoration of Judah and Israel (the northern and southern kingdoms).  
This is again alluded to in Ezekiel 37:15-28.  This is clearly identified in verses 21-22.

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

Zechariah 10 doesn't mention Ephraim being gathered first.

You make the mistake by interpreting "them" (verses 8-12) as only "Ephraim" and not any of all 
the other tribes.  Even "Judah" (in verse 3) is not only the tribe of Judah, but rather the southern 
kingdom.

"Mine anger was kindled against the shepherds, and I punished the goats: for the Lord of hosts 
hath visited his flock the house of Judah, and hath made them as his goodly horse in the battle".

The northern kingdom (representative of Ephraim) is never specifically referred to as the flock 
of God.

We see special emphasis on Judah again in Isaiah 5:7 ("For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is 
the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but 
behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry").

Again, like earlier in our discussion (and on your web page) you are focusing on the trouble between Judah and Ephraim prior to the Assyrian conquest and the scattering of Israel (the northern ten tribes) at around 721 BC.  Isaiah was one of the pre-exilic prophets.

You say that “The northern kingdom (representative of Ephraim) is never specifically referred to as the flock of God”, and you quoted Zechariah 10:3 selectively.  But you didn’t read on to verses 6-7 which says, “And I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them again to place them; for I have mercy upon them: and they shall be as though I had not cast them off: for I am the Lord their God, and will hear them.  And they of Ephraim shall be like a mighty man, and their heart shall rejoice as through wine: yea, their children shall see it, and be glad; their heart shall rejoice in the Lord.” 

So Ephraim is indeed included back into the flock of God.  And remember, Jesus said he was “not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24) and said he would go to his “other sheep” and they would hear his voice, and as a result, “there shall be one fold, and one shepherd” (John 10:16).  Ephraim is included in that “one fold and one shepherd”.

After the dispersion, the prophets in Judea had no reason to mention Ephraim by name because they were out of the picture.  But they did refer to Ephraim in the context of them being “Gentiles”.

Remember, Israelites were sown among the Gentiles, and they are called “Gentiles”.  In Genesis 48:19, it says (of Jacob blessing Ephraim):  "And his father refused and said, I know it, my son, I know it; he [Manasseh] also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; but truly his younger brother [Ephraim] shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of Gentiles."

So when Isaiah quotes the Lord as saying, “I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders” (see Isaiah 49:18-23), he is including Ephraim in that prophesy as “his seed” became a “multitude of Gentiles”.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.

You failed to consider the symbolism representing the people who were not permitted to enter the 
brazen sea: all Israelite women, all Israelite men who did not belong to the Aaronic/Levitical 
Priesthood, and all the Gentiles.

I’m not sure how what you say above helps your position at all.  What exactly are you trying to say, that the sacrifice and atonement of Jesus Christ did not change anything at all between the old covenant and the new?

The symbolism of the brazen sea is exactly the same, both under the old covenant and the new, for purification and cleansing.  But the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ brought in the new covenant, and it also opened the way for the work on behalf of the dead by Jesus preaching the gospel to the dead and providing a way for their redemption.  It also opened the way for all of us to pass through the veil of the temple.

If there is any “symbolism” in the prior restrictions under the old covenant compared to the freedom provided in the new, it is that Christ provided the way for all of us (living and dead) to access the holy place of the temple.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

"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.)

This secrecy was for protection.  Sacred things were not kept secret or withheld from fellow 
Christians.  But this secret keeping, where persecution is not in question, is contrary to what 
we see in the LDS Church.

While some of the secrecy was for their protection, your other statement is simply false as any Bible reader should recognize.

For example, 2 Corinthians 12:2-4: “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago (whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows) was caught up to the third heaven.  And I know that this man (whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows) was caught up into paradise and heard things too sacred to be put into words, things that a person is not permitted to speak.”  (New English Translation)

John had a similar experience when he received his Revelation on the isle of Patmos:  "And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not."  (Revelation 10:4)

Clearly there were things to be kept sacred and secret, even from fellow Christians until they were prepared for those things to be revealed.

Jesus expressed this principle in his teachings:  John 16:12; "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."   And the apostles also followed that same principle:  1 Corinthians 3:2, “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.”

The same concept is expressed in the quote from the early Christian Father, Lactantius, that I included in my last post that you are responding to above.  He wrote, "God orders us in quietness and silence to hide His secret, and to keep it within our own conscience".  He continues, "For a mystery ought to be most faithfully concealed and covered, especially by us, who bear the name of faith.”

Furthermore, I quoted from Hippolytus of Rome in my last post (you didn't comment on that quote), who was writing to fellow Christians about 215 AD, the following:

“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 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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?

The disciples only gathered in the temple for prayer and worship. Temple ordinances were only 
performed by the Levitical priests.

You keep beating this dead horse and keep neglecting the fact that this was only the case under the law of Moses, which was instituted only after the Israelites broke their covenants on Mount Sinai.  Prior to that time there was no such thing as Levitical priests, but there was a priesthood and priests (Genesis 14:18, Exodus 19:22-24) and obvious temple ordinances were performed (such as sacrifices and offerings: Genesis 4:4; 8:20; 12:7-8; 13:4,18; 22:9; 26:25; 33:20; 35:7, Exodus 18:10-12, 24:5). 

Under the new covenant after the time of Christ, the priesthood was “changed”, and Jesus opened the way for all to enter into the holy of holies, returning to the people the same privileges that the Lord was trying to offer Israel prior to them breaking their covenant.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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).

Maybe you consider the Old Testament writers stupid for describing all that adorned the temple or 
what the priests did therein.   It was all sacred but it was not a secret.

Again, you are neglecting the fact that the details of the temple ordinances recorded in the books of the law were done under the lesser covenant, after Israel broke their covenants on Mount Sinai.

But the details of what God revealed about sacrifices and offerings (temple ordinances) prior to the law of Moses are not recorded in scripture.  

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Supposedly it was all a secret in the Book of Mormon because you don't hear a peep about the inside 
of a temple. You don't even have any mention of the Nephites observing traditional Jewish festivals, 
such as Passover or the Feast of Tabernacles.  Now that's what I call a secret.

But you are wrong again.  Didn’t we already talk about this?  See: King Benjamin and the Feast of Tabernacles, by John A. Tvedtnes.  See also the Youtube video: Why is the Feast of Tabernacles Significant to Latter-day Saints? (Come, Follow Me: Ezra, Nehemiah)

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

So prior to Israel breaking their covenants on Mount Sinai, where are the commandments written down on when and how to make offerings explained?

The commandments as we know it do not come into existence until the Law of Moses. Instructions 
on offerings and sacrifices were not explicitly detailed in written form as they were later in 
the Law of Moses.  

Correction, the written commandments in the Bible “as we know it” do not come into existence until the Law of Moses.

Prior to the law of Moses they were obviously commanded to make offerings and sacrifices, or else why would they all do it the same way and with the same intent?  Do you believe the Lord simply liked the idea and copied what men came up with on their own when he instituted the law of Moses later on?

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

The giving of offerings is not widespread prior to the Mosaic Law as you believe.  While no 
individuals are specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon, the Bible identifies key figures as 
making offerings: Cain, Abel, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  The Pearl of Great Price only mentions 
Adam, Cain, and Abel.

Since the book of Genesis only covers the lives of the “key figures” in those times, it’s no wonder that only those key figures are mentioned making sacrifices and offerings.  But you forgot some of them:

• Genesis 4:4; Cain and Abel
• Genesis 8:20; Noah
• Genesis 12:7-8, 13:4, 18; Abram
• Genesis 22:9; Abraham and the binding of Isaac
• Genesis 26:25; Abraham and Isaac
• Genesis 33:20; Jacob
• Genesis 35:7; Jacob
• Exodus 18:10-12; Jethro, Aaron, and all the elders of Israel
• Exodus 24:5-6; Moses and the young men of the children of Israel

Given that these key figures made offerings and sacrifices in the same basic way, it is apparent that they were acting under a common commanded from God to do these things, and these same sacrifices and offerings were later confined to the temple by the men who ruled later in the history of Israel.  I don’t believe that God would copy this practice and institute it in the law of Moses later on, I believe God is the one who commanded it from the beginning at time of Adam.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

This post by LeSellers back in 2011 shows a statue that used to be (may still be?) in the Visitor's 
Center on Temple Square.  It depicts Adam and Eve offering what appears to be fruit (the offering 
of Cain).

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56085-temple-square-art-work/?do=findComment&comment=1209059315

What are you trying to say here, that Cain’s offering was rejected by God because it was fruit?  And Adam and Eve should not have been depicted as offering the firstfruits of their crops?

Please demonstrate that God rejected Cain’s offering because it was fruit.

Do you not realize that God also commanded firstfruit offerings (Deuteronomy 26:1-2, Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Numbers 18:13)?

You should also read the Got Questions article, “Why did God accept Abel’s offering but reject Cain’s offering?”

First, notice in the article that they say exactly what I’ve been saying here: 

“Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam and Eve, ‘in the course of time’ brought offerings to the Lord (Genesis 4:3). Without doubt, they were doing this because God had revealed to them the necessity of a sacrifice. Some wonder how Cain and Abel were supposed to know what to sacrifice. The answer is that God must have instructed them concerning the details of acceptable worship, although those instructions are not included in the Genesis narrative.”

Now isn’t that the very thing you have been arguing against here?

Further in the article they explain that Cain’s offering was rejected by God because of his motivation.  It was his heart that was not right before God, not because it was fruit. 

A Jewish rabbinical commentary on the statement, “of the fruit of the ground” in Genesis 4:3 indicates that Cain’s fruit offering was “of the worst fruits” (Rashi), while Bereshit Rabbah 22 indicates, “’Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord’ – from the refuse. This is analogous to a malevolent sharecropper who eats the ripe fruit himself and provides the field owner with the unripe fruit.”

Now please explain your criticism of the statue in the Visitor's Center on Temple Square depicting “Adam and Eve offering what appears to be fruit (the offering of Cain)”?  What exactly was your reason for trying to associate Adam and Eve’s offering of fruit with the offering of Cain?  What was your intention?

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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)?

They are not mentioned in any of the LDS canon of scriptures.

Nor are they mentioned in the Bible, and even the Got Questions website acknowledges this fact (as noted above).  Yet, those key biblical figures did build altars and make burnt offerings.  So obviously the Lord commanded them to do this (as the Got Questions website also acknowledges). 

Do you think that God just copied what men started doing on their own?  Do you believe God saw what they were doing in the beginning and thought, “that’s a good idea, I think I’ll copy that” when he issued those commandments in the law of Moses later on?

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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?

Abraham built an altar to the Lord as an act of worship and gratitude. No instructions were provided.  
As I mentioned before, the making of altars or giving offerings was not as widespread as you believe.

Abraham was given specific instructions from the Lord on offering up Isaac in Genesis 22.  And the Got Questions website totally disagrees with you.  I think you are simply trying hard to be contrary to Latter-day Saint teachings on this topic, because why else would God institute the same practice again under the law of Moses later on?

As for how widespread those offerings and sacrifices were, do you believe the Bible covers everything that everyone did prior to the law of Moses, or does it only discuss the key figures?  And since those key figures built altars and made offerings and sacrifices to God in the same way it was done in the temple after the law of Moses, why would you think that the practice was only limited to those key figures?

Remember what the Got Questions website says of the offerings of Cain and Abel? “Without doubt, they were doing this because God had revealed to them the necessity of a sacrifice… God must have instructed them concerning the details of acceptable worship, although those instructions are not included in the Genesis narrative.” 

Since God had revealed that practice early on (during the life of Adam and Eve), why in the world would you suppose that Adam and Eve would not have passed down those commandments to the rest of their children?  Why keep it a secret from the rest of the world as you seem to suppose?  It was certainly a commandment known of Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jethro, Aaron, and the Israelites prior to the law of Moses.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/ancient-temple-imagery-in-the-sermons-of-jacob/

In the Book of Mormon, there is no specific mention of Levite priests making offerings in the 
temple.

Of course not, there were no Levite priests in the Book of Mormon.  But there were offerings and sacrifices made by those who held the higher priesthood (Mosiah 2:3).

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

What was God's purpose at Mount Sinai?  What was the purpose of the tabernacle in the wilderness, if not for a temple?

The purpose was to establish a covenant with the Israelites.  The one temple in Jerusalem would 
become the one and only one sanctioned by Him.  There was no temple or tabernacle before the days 
of Moses.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia article, “Sacrifice”, starting under the heading, “Biblical Data”:

Quote

—Biblical Data:

It is assumed in the Scriptures that the institution of sacrifice is coeval with the race. Abel and Cain are represented as the first among men to sacrifice; and to them are attributed the two chief classes of oblations: namely, the vegetable or bloodless, and the animal or blood-giving (Gen. iv. 3, 4). After the Flood, Noah offered of "every clean beast, and of every clean fowl" (ib. viii. 20). The building of altars by the Patriarchs is frequently recorded (ib. xii. 7, 8; xiii. 4, 18; xxi. 33; xxvi. 25; xxxiii. 20; xxxv. 7). Abraham offers a sacrifice at which Yhwh makes a covenant with him (ib. xv.). In the history of Jacob a sacrifice is mentioned as a ratification of a treaty (ib. xxxi. 54). He sacrifices also when he leaves Canaan to settle in Egypt (ib. xlvi. 1). Abraham had been or believed he had been given the command to sacrifice his son (ib. xxii.). These ancient offerings included not only the bloodless kind (ib. iv. 3), but also holocausts (ib. viii. 20, xxii. 13) and animal thank-offerings (ib. xxxi. 54, xlvi. 1).

Place of Sacrifice.

The primitive altar was made of earth (comp. Ex. xx. 24) or of unhewn stones (ib. xx. 25; Deut. xxvii. 5), and was located probably on an elevation (see Altar; High Place). The story in Genesis proceeds on the theory that wherever the opportunity was presented for sacrifice there it was offered (Gen. viii. 20, xxxi. 54; comp. Ex. xxiv. 4). No one fixed place seems to have been selected (Ex. xx. 24, where the Masoretic text,   = "I will have my 'zeker' [ = "remembrance"]," and Geiger's emendation,   = "Thou wilt place my 'zeker,'" bear out this inference). This freedom to offer sacrifices at any place recurs in the eschatological visions of the Later Prophets (Isa. xix. 19, 21; Zeph. ii. 11; Mal. i. 11; Zech. xiv. 20, 21), thus confirming the thesis of Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos") that the end is always a reproduction of the beginning.

The Paschal Sacrifice.

Under Moses, according to the Pentateuch, this freedom to offer sacrifices anywhere and without the ministrations of the appointed sacerdotal agents disappears. The proper place for the oblations was to be "before the door of the tabernacle," where the altar of burnt offerings stood (Ex. xl. 6), and where Yhwh met His people (ib. xxix. 42; Lev. i. 3; iv. 4; xii. 6; xv. 14, 29; xvi. 7; xvii. 2-6; xix. 21), or simply "before Yhwh" (Lev. iii. 1, 7, 12; ix. 2, 4, 5), and later in Jerusalem in the Temple (Deut. xii. 5-7, 11, 12).

Note what it says above: 

• The practice of offering sacrifices and offerings is “coeval with the race”, meaning that it is as old as the origin of man.
• The place of sacrifice was “wherever the opportunity was presented”, meaning that this practice, which was later confined to the temple, was practiced anywhere and “No one fixed place seems to have been selected”. 
• Most importantly, the article says, “This freedom to offer sacrifices at any place recurs in the eschatological visions of the Later Prophets… thus confirming the thesis… that the end is always a reproduction of the beginning”.  In other words, temple practice (of being done in multiple places throughout the world) will return to how they were in the beginning during the end times. 
• And finally, it was not until “Under Moses” that “this freedom to offer sacrifices anywhere without the ministrations of the appointed sacerdotal agents disappears”.  It was only then that it was to be done “before the door of the tabernacle” or “later in Jerusalem at the Temple”.

Since there seems to have been temple practices done in many places prior to the law of Moses, your claim that “There was no temple or tabernacle before the days of Moses” is completely unfounded.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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?

Sacrifices and offerings were made as an act of worship.  They were not commanded by God, as 
indicated in the Pearl of Great Price, until the Mosaic Law is given.

The Got Questions website and Jewish Encyclopedia disagrees with you.  You are simply trying to be contrary to Latter-day Saint doctrine without considering all the facts.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.

https://www.deseret.com/2016/5/14/20588586/the-development-of-early-christian-sanctuaries-from-temples-to-homes-to-basilicas/

I viewed it.

Roman Catholics (pre-Vatican II), Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, and some Anglicans/Lutherans 
traditionally had priests face away from the people during liturgy, symbolically leading the 
congregation in worship toward God.  Some even used large veils, but the laity could not pass through.

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new 
and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 
And having an high priest over the house of God".

The veil was torn from top to bottom as Jesus entered the Holiest by his blood. He became the 
way that we enter the Holiest too, without the veil but by the blood of Jesus. The Israelites, 
who were not permitted to enter the Holiest place, could now enter by faith in Christ.  They 
did not need the Levitical high priest anymore.  

It is true that we don’t need a Levitical high priest anymore, but Hebrews 10:19-21 demonstrates that your belief that we enter in “without the veil” is totally incorrect.  Christ made it possible for all of us to pass “through the veil” (Hebrews 10:19-21) and go into the holy of holies in the temple of God.  It can’t be “without the veil” if we go “through the veil”.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Christ is the only high priest over the house of God.

You keep repeating yourself.  You’ve made this claim several times previously without any biblical support.  We have already discussed this. 

 I realize the “only high priest” idea is your belief (you can believe whatever you want), and I understand that this is a very popular teaching among many Christian groups today, but there is simply no biblical basis for this belief at all.  We discussed this previously in this very thread.  See my post on 04/19/2024, where I demonstrated that there is no Old Testament precedent for the idea that Christ “is the one and only High Priest” because there are several Old Testament examples of times when there were multiple high priests.   The same goes for the New Testament.  Latter-day Saint belief is the most in harmony with the Bible on this topic.

See also my post on 07/10/2023 followed by Kevin Christensen’s post on 07/12/2023 on the “high priest” topic. 

The New Testament never says Christ is the one and only High Priest, it simply says Christ is the great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14).

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

The early Christian saints would have used similar resources for performing temple ordinances in the absence of a building constructed specifically for that purpose.

Besides baptisms for the dead, what other temple ordinances do you believe they participated in?

Already asked.  Already answered.  Think of something new to talk about.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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?

I see only one temple in Revelation 3:12.

I don’t see any restriction on the number of temples in Revelation 3:12. If Christ says it is the “temple of my God”, it can be anywhere or any one of God’s temples.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Miracle and revelation from God continue in our day. I believe in the same gifts of the Holy Spirit 
that were present in the early church.  But I don't see anything on the level of "Thus saith the 
Lord" to start adding to our canon.  I also don't see what was experienced in 1 Kings 8:10-11; 
where the glory of the Lord fills the house and the priests could not stand to minister because 
of the cloud.

I suppose individual groups could print their own Bibles and add what they believe to be extra 
revelations.  Or they could just consider sermons as revelation from God without the need to create 
a 67th or 68th book

Or why can’t individual groups just quit trusting in their own traditions about the closed canon of scripture and how to interpret it all on their own, and trust in God instead?  Where has God ever said his word is limited to those 66 books?  Where has God ever said he would leave men to the pleasure of their own interpretations of his word?

Where has God ever said he would quit sending apostles and prophets to direct his church?  He hasn’t ever said that.  He has actually said the opposite, that apostles and prophets would continue “till we all come to a unity of the faith”.  So why don’t these individual groups read and use what God has actually said in those 66 books to see that God would continue in what he has done all along, through living apostles and prophets?

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

The last thing canonized in the Standard Works of the LDS Church was back in 1978 I think.  Is the 
Doctrine and Covenants therefore a closed canon until something new is added? 

I may be wrong but most of the D&C deals with the time before the saints travelled to the Salt 
Lake Basin in 1847.  Very little is written between that time and our present day.

You’ve tried this nonsense argument before and have been corrected on it, but you seem determined to repeat your errors.  

First, section 137 and 138 were canonized in the Saturday Afternoon session of the 1976 General Conference (at first considered to be part of the Pearl of Great Price), but not added to the Doctrine and Covenants until 1981, so you are a few years off.  

Second, your criticism that the Lord’s church hasn’t added anything to its canon of scripture for the last 44 years is not that long when compared to the gaps in time between some of the books of the Old Testament, and especially the gap between Malachi or Nehemiah and the first books of the New Testament.

Just because God doesn’t add something new to his canon of scripture for a period of time doesn’t mean that he’s done adding to it.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.

There were likely individuals from other tribes living in Jerusalem and its surrounding areas. 
This is because after the division of the united monarchy of Israel, some members of the northern 
tribes may have migrated to the southern kingdom for various reasons, including religious ones, 
as Jerusalem was the center of worship with the temple.  2 Chronicles 34:21 indicate some of the 
northern tribes were still in Israel prior to the Babylonian captivity.

1 Chronicles 9:3 indicates some of Ephraim and Manasseh lived in Jerusalem after returning from 
Babylon.

Yes, I pointed some of that out to you before.  Those verses substantiate the background of people like Lehi and his family in the Book of Mormon.

But obviously this doesn’t have anything to do with the scattered northern tribes and the records of their prophets which was the point I was making.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.

We don't have historical records of these prophets being sent all over the world to the scattered 
tribes, Jesus coming to them, calling 12 disciples, and then setting up a church among them.

We do have one historical record of this, the Book of Mormon.  More will be forthcoming in the future.

God hasn’t forgotten his people.  They will have records from those prophets.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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"?

That promise is eternal life, the same for all faithful Israelites and Gentiles.  But the blessings 
of the land inheritance is still there for a specific people.

Yes, a specific people, the seed of Abraham.

END OF PART 1 - TO BE CONTINUED

[InCognitus]

This is part 2 of a response to the post by @theplains on June 20, located here, which was a response to my post dated 05/26/2025. 

PART 2 OF 2

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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?

I believe those seven churches in Revelation were literal churches at the time. I don't subscribe 
to the notion that it is symbolic or that a church represents a church age.

Not all that was written to a specific church can be applied to the remaining six.  You can see 
this in the specific commendation and condemnation given to each.

I agree with you that there is no indication that the seven churches in Revelation are representative of “a church age”.  And I also agree that the churches in Revelation were literal churches at the time.  However, Babylon was a literal city and a literal empire in its day, but the word Babylon is used in the book of Revelation and throughout the Bible as “a symbol for the stereotypical enemies of God and His people. (Sodom and Egypt are also used in this way)” (as it says in the Got Questions article, What is the significance of Babylon in the Bible?). 

Furthermore, the number seven has symbolic significance throughout the book of Revelation (and the entire Bible for that matter), and (as I mentioned last time) John’s vision included instructions to these “seven” churches with both specific greetings from Jesus Christ (as told in the vision), along with specific praises when applicable (to five of the seven churches) along with specific warnings against corruption when applicable (to five of the seven churches), but each one of them also received promises to those who “overcome”, and these were always directed to all the “churches”, i.e. “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26-29, 3:5-6, 12-13, and 21-22).

Since this was all given to John in a prophetic vision, it is definitely not intended to be entirely limited to seven specific historical churches (even though some very specific criticisms may have applied to them alone) any more than the prophecies about Babylon (or Sodom or Egypt) would be limited to a specific historical city or empire.  I believe the general instructions, admonitions, and blessings pronounced to each of those churches could be applicable to any one of us today in similar situations, and the general promises made to those who “overcome” are applicable to all who overcome in any time or place.  Their examples are there for our benefit.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.

When and who is the fulfillment of 2 Thessalonians 2:7-9?

I have already explained that, have I not?

You also asked the following in your post in the Overthrowing the Church of God thread on 06/24/2025:

On 6/24/2025 at 9:13 AM, theplains said:

How do you understand this part of verses 7-8?

"For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be 
taken out of the way. 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".

In my response to that on June 29, I pointed out how I have already explained to you the “when and who” of verses 7-9 of 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 in my post my post on 03/29/2025 and on 05/26/2025 , where I explained that the “who” is Satan, and Paul was saying that Satan was already at work in Paul’s day and how Satan’s work would continue until Christ returns and Satan’s work will be destroyed at Christ’s second coming.

As I also said before, Satan is the one doing those wicked things through the lives of many people including some in Paul’s day, which is why Paul said, “the mystery of iniquity doth already work” in his day and time.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

I believe it is the beast of Revelation 13 and 19, whom Christ casts into the lake of fire at the 
Second Coming.

Satan is cast into the lake and fire after the end of the millennial period, joining the beast and
false prophet who are still there (Revelation 20:10).

You are repeating yourself, so I’ll repeat myself.  I explained what I believe Paul is saying, above (it is Satan).  And even though the beast of Revelation 13 and 19 is one of the individuals that Satan uses to do his evil works, the beast can’t possibly be the only “who” of 2 Thessalonians 2:7-9 because Paul said he was already at work in his day (“the mystery of iniquity doth already work”), and no human individual lives that long. 

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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?

The spirit of the antichrist can reside in different people at different times.  It began to work 
prior to Paul's time and possibly more so in his time.  But I believe there will be someone much 
more evil (two in this case; the beast and the false prophet) who Christ will cast into the lake 
of fire at the Second Coming.   The power, signs, and lying wonders of this man of sin (2 Thessalonians 
2:9) fits nicely with those of Revelation 13:7,12-14;  19:19-20. 

Okay, so apparently you do see that 2 Thessalonians 2 can’t possibly be referring to just the beast, but it is Satan in general.

As for 2 Thessalonians 2:9, that verse is somewhat ambiguous when taken out of context.  The subject of who is “coming” is defined in verse 8, where it 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”.   The one who is “coming” is the Lord Jesus Christ, and he comes chronologically after Satan does his wickedness on the earth.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

I don't see Titus having a role in the events above or those described in Matthew 24:15-31.

We’ve been through this before (why do you keep repeating yourself?).

Remember, Matthew 24 starts out with the context of Jesus answering two separate and distinct questions asked by the apostles in verse 3: “Tell us, when shall these things be? [concerning the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem in 70 AD – see verse 2] and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”

Jesus discussed the events leading up to the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem in 70 AD in verses 15-21 of Matthew 24.  Titus is the one who destroyed the temple at Jerusalem in 70 AD. And if you doubt that those verses in Matthew 24 are talking about the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem in 70 AD, compare those same verses to Luke’s account of the same discourse in Luke 21:20-24, where verses 20 and 24 make a very clear reference to the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the temple at Jerusalem in 70 AD:

“And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh… And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

Remember the Jerusalem timeline?  Remember what I posted on 08/18/2024?  Remember the Jewish virtual Library article, History of Jerusalem: Timeline for the History of Jerusalem?

The destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem happened exactly the way that Jesus prophesied in 70 AD, it’s a past event.  The Roman emperor Titus was responsible for that destruction and his defiling of the temple in the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

And please don’t reboot that entire discussion again.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.

Do those in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms make up the bride of Christ?

For context I’ll repeat what I said last time:  

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.

So, there are various groups of people that make up the bride of Christ, but ultimately it will only be the faithful who come to the wedding feast wearing the wedding garment.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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?

That much-bigger-thing are the mighty signs and wonders done by the beast and false prophet to 
deceive the people on the earth just before the Second Coming.

No.  The much “bigger” thing we were talking about was the apostasy that Paul prophesied would come and that it was “already” at work during his day, which has nothing to do with the behavior of the “beast” and “false prophet”.  Remember, Paul “marveled” that the saints at Galatia were “so soon removed” from the gospel of Christ.  Remember, Paul prophesied that Christ’s organization would be destroyed and the bishops would be replaced after his “departing”. 

When did that apostasy occur?  Where does Revelation 13 or 19 say anything about an apostasy?  (It doesn’t).  That apostasy is in the past because it was already beginning in Paul’s day.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.

Revelation 13:12-14: "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. 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".

Revelation 19:20 – "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". 

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12: "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. And for this cause God shall 
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who 
believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness". 

These future, lying signs and wonders may even exceed those wrought by the Apostles of the early church.

Yes, but how does this answer the question of where Revelation 13 or 19 shows anything about the great apostasy that Paul was talking about in 2 Thessalonians 2:3?  Future lying signs and wonders by the beast and false prophet don’t indicate an apostasy from the true Christian faith.  You’re going to need to point out specifically where these chapters show that an apostasy is taking place.  Can you do that?

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.

Jesus did not come to create the church as an institution.

That’s clearly a false statement, as it contradicts the New Testament.

Jesus came to organize his church as a body of believers, with a definite leadership and hierarchy, giving it apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God” (Ephesians 4:12–13). 

The apostle Paul did not say that Jesus did this only until men could read the Bible on their own and invent their own church, rather he said this organization was established “till we all come in the unity of the faith”, so that “we henceforth be no more 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). In other words, the institution that Christ set up was intended to prevent the very thing we see happening in Christianity today.

To his apostles Jesus said, “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.” (Matthew 10:40)

Paul also taught, “God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.  And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you” (1 Corinthians 12:18–21).  Paul also taught that some of those members of the body of the church included apostles and prophets (1 Corinthians 12:28).

If Christ didn’t set up the church as an institution, then what is this organized leadership that Paul said would continue until all come in the unity of the faith?  And who are you to say of an apostle or prophet (a member of that body), “I have no need of thee”?

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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?

I think deification is more about the concept of believers sharing in certain aspects of divine 
life or nature without becoming a deity.

But what you say above reflects your modern popular version of Christianity that developed much later on, which is totally contrary to the teachings of the early mainstream Christian Fathers, for they clearly taught that those who are deified become actual “Gods”.

Here are a few examples:

Irenaeus (175-195 AD), “For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 38)

Irenaeus again, “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.”  (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 39).

Origen (185-254 AD):  “Now the God of the universe is the God of the elect, and in a much greater degree of the Saviours of the elect; then He is the God of these beings who are truly Gods, and then He is the God, in a word, of the living and not of the dead.”  (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 2 Chapter 3).

Origen again, “"There are some gods of whom God is God, as we hear in prophecy,[Psalms 136:2] ‘Thank ye the God of gods,’ and [Psalms 50:1, LXX and in the Hebrew] ‘The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth.’ Now God, according to the Gospel, [Matt 20:2] ‘is not the God of the dead but of the living.’ Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says: [1 Cor 8:5] ‘As there are gods many and lords many,’ and so we have spoken of these gods as really existing.”  (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, Chapter 34).

Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 – c.220 AD): “the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God. Is it not then monstrous, my friends, that while God is ceaselessly exhorting us to virtue, we should spurn His kindness and reject salvation?” (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, Chapter 1, Paragraph 13).

Clement of Alexandria (again), “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).

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235 AD):   “And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality. ...  For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, thou shalt resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shalt have honour conferred upon thee by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the divinity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!”  (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book 10, Chapter 30).

Do any of the sources from the early Christians quoted above sound like they are teaching “believers sharing in certain aspects of divine life or nature without becoming a deity”?

NOW again, why do you suppose that the majority of the mainstream Christians teachers 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 actual gods?

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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)

Which God or Gods are the Brother and Sister Gods (of Earth's Heavenly Father) and Heavenly Father 
(of Earth) in subjection to?

None, obviously, since God the Father is “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32).  He is the “head God” as Joseph Smith taught.

Reread what I posted last time and engage what I said rather than just repeating your distorted views of Latter-day Saint doctrines.  I already addressed your mischaracterization of our beliefs.

Furthermore, your response above has nothing to do with the quote from the early Christian Father, Clement of Alexandria, where he clearly taught doctrines similar to that of Origen (who I quoted previously), where he taught doctrines very much like what you quoted from the LDS Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, Chapter 4. Your comment is just another diversion from the topic.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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?

As I mentioned before, Heavenly Father is only eternal in the sense he was never created, he always 
existed. He is gnolaum.  But he has not eternally existed as God. I'll elaborate further in your
example of Jack the plumber.
 
One Christian view is that Jesus is the Eternal God. There never was a time when he was not God.  
Another view (the LDS one) is that he has not eternally existed as God but rather he was an eternal 
being who became a God.

The LDS Jesus constitutes a different Jesus.  

Perhaps the “LDS Jesus constitutes is a different Jesus” than what modern Christians believe and teach about him (the creedal Jesus), but what Latter-day Saints teach about Jesus is not different than the biblical Jesus and the teachings about Jesus from the earliest Christians. 

I posted about this previously, and you agreed that some of the early Christian teachings about Jesus sounded a lot like what you quoted from the Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, Chapter 4.  You said, (referring to a quote from  Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, paragraph 2), “What he said seems to align with what the seminary manual mentions”.  And I also posted a similar statement from Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 2.

Now who exactly is teaching a “different Jesus”?

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

From what I understand of LDS theology, all the spirit brothers and sisters of Heavenly Father (who 
became Gods themselves), and Heavenly Father himself (who also became a God), were made priests and 
kings to their God (the Father above Heavenly Father and all his spirit brothers and sisters. Jesus 
Grandfather in simpler terms).

CFR for where the LDS church officially teaches (in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals) what you claim to “understand of LDS theology” as stated above.  And if you try to use any of the references that you posted previously that I already discussed in my last post, then engage what I said about them in my last post and explain why anything I said was incorrect.

Your caricature of LDS theology doesn’t agree with Joseph Smith’s teachings that “all Gods” before us were made “kings and priests to God”, nor does it agree with what the scriptures clearly teach, that God is “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32).

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

When other male and females of Earth are said to be made Gods (become priests and kings), Heavenly 
Father of Earth will be the God of these Gods.

When these newly formed male Gods on Earth begin procreating their own spirit children, they will 
attempt to make their spirit children kings and priests to God (to them, not to their Grandfather 
God).

When you use the phrase "one Eternal God of all other gods", you are only focusing on Heavenly 
Father's sphere.  

CFR for where the LDS Church teaches (in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals) that Doctrines and Covenants 121:32 applies to only “Heavenly Father’s sphere”, or where I personally made that distinction as you are alleging that I am doing above.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Do you believe Heavenly Father of Earth is greater than all the beings who became Gods long before 
Heavenly Father was even born to his heavenly parents?

CFR for where the LDS Church teaches (in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals) for what you are saying above. 

And if you try to use any of the references that you posted previously that I already discussed in my last post, then engage what I said about them in my last post and explain why anything I said was incorrect.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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)).

You forget all the other descriptions of the people in that passage:

"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. 

Only those led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.  These are the heirs.  In your logic, 
only exalted become Gods.

You are repeating yourself, and this has already been dealt with extensively previously, and more recently in my post on 08/17/2025 and my post on 08/30/2025. 

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

The concepts teaching that men become gods are clearly found in the biblical texts (and after all, God is a "God of gods").

There's a teaching which goes something like this:

"In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and 
concocted a plan to create the world and people it".

Who is that head God?  Is he the God of all the other Gods? Are these Gods of the past (before 
Heavenly Father became God of Earth), Gods in the present in other spheres, or children of Heavenly 
Father who hope to become Gods in the future or who have already progressed to Godhood in the past 
or present?

The answer to your questions above should be completely evident based on what I posted previously, including the post you are responding to. 

Here is one of the relevant portions from my last post:

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”.

He says “all Gods” before us have become “kings and priests to God”, the head of all Gods.

What could be more clear than that?

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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:

Moses and Satan are referred to as gods but they are not deities.

There are examples in scripture of being exalted but that does not mean being made into a deity.

I don't think the early church father had the following concept in mind:  "As man is [not a God 
now] God once was [not a God once]. As God is [now a God], man may become [a God in the future]".

Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195) taught, “How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?” (Against Heresies, IV.39 (St. Irenaeus). 

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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?

Some Christians believe other [false] gods exist or that the gods in Psalm 82 is a reference to 
human judges. Moses and Satan are also referred to as gods.

Your response totally avoids the question and falls back to your favorite false interpretation of Psalm 82 (that we have discussed over and over) and doesn’t deal with what these mainstream early Christian fathers actually taught (even regarding Psalm 82).  The mainstream early Christian Fathers taught that the “gods” of Psalm 82 are men that are actual gods, and they often used Psalm 82 in their teachings that men become gods.

Here are a few examples:  

Justin Martyr (150 AD):  Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CXXIV.

Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195):  Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter VI (paragraph 1), Book IV, Chapter XXXVIII (paragraph 4).

Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220 AD): Exhortation to the Heathen, Chapter XII,

Origen (185-254 AD):  Against Celsus, Book 8, Chapter 3.

More examples could be given.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.

Alright.  The LDS Heavenly Father earns the title of God, meaning he was not God "by title" before.

Here is a rephrase of Isaiah 44:6: "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the 
LORD of hosts; I am the first [doctor], and I am the last [doctor]; and beside me there is no God 
[doctor]".

And a rephrase of Isaiah 43:10:  "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have 
chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God 
[no doctor] formed, neither shall there be [no titles of doctor bestowed upon anyone] after me".

For me, based on how I understand the scriptures, God is always God and never needs to earn the 
title of God. There never is a time when he is not operating as Doctor. 

That’s an interestingly contrived story, but it has no relationship to reality.

I believe God has always had the title of God as the most advanced and most intelligent being in existence, but he “became” our God in relationship to us, as stated as follows: 

“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 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.

 For your Jack example, you are primarily focusing only at the moment Jack becomes a plumber.

No, just the opposite.  I’m focusing on the fact that Jack is now an eternal plumber, regardless of the moment or how long ago he became a plumber.  I’m focusing on what we know of Jack now and the eternities to come, which is the same for how the God of the Bible is described in the Bible.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

You 
don't consider the time before Jack is born.  He is eternal but he has not always existed [eternally] 
as a plumber.

But that’s not what it means to be an “eternal plumber”, nor is that what it means to be an “eternal God”.  The Bible never says God has existed eternally as a God, it says from age to age he is God (as we have discussed many times).  I’m just putting your example into the same terminology we have for God in the Bible.

To be perfectly clear, I do believe that God has always been God in the sense that God the Father has always been the most advanced, and is thus the God over "all other gods" as Doctrine and Covenants 121:32 says, and that all the gods before us have become kings and priests "to God" in the same way (as Joseph Smith).

God the Father only “became” our God in the way that Joseph Smith explained: “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 “became” our God when we agreed to align with God and accept his plan.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.

Eternal life is not living life as a God, procreating spirit children and peopling worlds that 
are created.

Do you believe that if you receive “eternal life” that it would mean that you have had life eternally?  If so, then fine, your thinking is consistent.  But if you don’t believe that you have had life eternally, then why would you imagine that the phrase “eternal God” means that he has been God eternally?  You aren’t being logical or consistent.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

I don't believe we have always existed. God created us.

Actually, biblically speaking we are all the offspring of God (the very same kind of being as God), and God is the “Father of spirits”, and God created the earth and created man (the human soul) by forming our bodies from the dust of the earth and putting into us the “breath of life” (our spirits that came from God and will return to God).

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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)

Did Heavenly Father institute his own laws for progression or did he just pass on the same laws 
that he obtained from his own Father so he could also advance to Godhood?

Obviously according to Joseph Smith and other teachings of the church, God the Father instituted his own laws or utilized laws that are eternal.

CFR for where official LDS Theology (in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals) teaches that God had “laws that he obtained from his own Father so he could also advance to Godhood”.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.

You seem to be referring only to the sphere in which you reside.

You seem to be ignoring the meaning of “all other gods”.

CFR on where I “seem to be referring only to the sphere in which you reside”.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Unless you believe Heavenly 
Father of Earth is more higher than all the Gods before him, even exceeding his own Father or 
spirit brothers and sisters who went on to become Gods themselves.

Can you clarify this?  Are you only focusing on this sphere or all spheres in existence, where 
each sphere has its own set of Gods?

CFR where official LDS Theology (in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals) teaches that God has “spirit brothers and sisters who went on to become Gods themselves”.  And if you intend to use any of the sources that I discussed in my last post (like the Sermon in the Grove or King Follet Discourse), you will need to engage the things I posted last time and explain where I said anything that is incorrect.

Besides, I have already answered that question many times.  Quoting from my post on 03/03/2025, “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 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.

I believe the Godhead [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] always existed. They have always been God.  
There is only one Godhead. Nothing came into existence without Christ's involvement.

Ok, so you don’t believe what you said last time, that “all beings are created through Christ”.  I don’t either.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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?

Angels could be viewed as a different type of creation next to the seraphim and cherubim. The 
cherub above the ark of the covenant are depicted as having two wings each.

Of course, someone could view angels as a different type of creation next to the seraphim and cherubim (people believe all kinds of unbiblical things), but such a belief would not be based on the Bible.  The Bible gives us absolutely no indication that angels are a different type of creation, next to the seraphim and cherubim, or otherwise.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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?

Here is some commentary to help explain what this means:

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/god/what-does-it-mean-to-be-the-offspring-of-god.html

The strangest part about that Christianity.com article is the title, “What Does it Mean to Be the Offspring of God?”  It’s funny (strange) because the article never provides that meaning, it doesn’t answer the question that is asked in the title, it never provides a definition of the Greek word génos that is translated as “offspring” in those verses.

Don’t you think that is a bit odd, or even suspicious?  Why do you think the authors of that article totally avoid defining that word? 

I think I know, it is because they know that there is no possible way to reconcile the popular modern Christian teaching about the transcendence of God and the popular modern Christian teaching that God created man out of nothing (creatio ex-nihilo), both of which are unbiblical, with the meaning of that Greek word (génos) in the context of the apostle Paul’s teaching in the Bible that we are all the offspring of God, the same kind of being as God.  In modern Christian theology those concepts are incompatible with Paul’s teachings, and thus in the face of Paul’s sermon those modern Christian ideas are shown to be unbiblical.

As you know I already posted my comments on that Christianity.com article over in the Overthrowing the Church of God thread, in my post dated 08/30/2025.  So you should already know how the Christianity.com article tries to get around the real meaning of Paul’s teaching by bringing in other ideas that Paul didn’t introduce to his Greek audience in the context of his sermon in Acts 17, and by doing that the writers of that article commentary destroy the full impact of Paul’s logic in that sermon and they introduce even more confusion to the situation.  Their explanation not only doesn’t solve the issue Paul was addressing, it makes it much much worse and it portrays Paul as a lying bait and switch salesman.

Since you used the Christianity.com article to get around directly answering the questions I asked about Acts 17:28-29 in my last post, and since the Christianity.com article does nothing to address my questions, I’m going to restate them here.

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."

Why would Paul use that word (génos) if he knew that was how his Greek audience would understand the word if Paul didn't intend that meaning?  Was he trying to trick them into joining Christianity like the Christianity.com article portrays him doing, since the article says that Paul really meant that we are created by God, or that only Christians can be the children of God through adoption, instead?

Also, if you are going to simply cut and paste a commentary as if it is an answer to my question (which it was not in this case), you should also include your own comments to explain why you believe the commentary (or whatever you posted) addresses my question.  Otherwise, it is meaningless.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

I don't believe we are born in the sexual case of literal reproduction between a heavenly mother 
and father who are believed to have physical bodies of flesh and bone.

Of course, Latter-day Saints doctrine doesn’t say exactly how we are the offspring of God, so you don’t have to believe it the way you describe it above (I certainly don’t take it that way).  But you should believe it the way that Paul taught it in the Bible, which is that we are all the “offspring of God” – the same kind of being as God (it’s biblical)! 

And Paul didn’t elaborate on exactly how we (all humankind) are the “offspring of God”, the very same kind of being as God, other than saying that we are that.  But I know you believe that his Greek audience would have understood it as you said in your post on January 2, that “The pagans understood ‘offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction for the Greek gods; like that which occurs between male and female.”  So, I’m sure some of those that Paul converted to Christianity on that day may have believed it the way you described it.  Maybe Paul did too.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

So, a child of God is not necessarily an heir of God.

A child of God, by adoption, satisfies all the conditions of Romans 8:12-17. You can't pick some 
of the descriptions in those verses and omit the rest.

These are the children of God:

• 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.

You are just repeating yourself and are responding to my comment out of context and are ignoring the rest of scripture.

These are also children of God:

• All of us, we are all the “offspring of God” (Acts 17:28-29).
• All of us, for God is the “Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12:9).
• All of us in one sense, but only those who follow God by behaving like him in another sense, because Jesus said we must follow God our “Father” by loving our enemies and doing good to them that hate us, so “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 4:45). Note that Jesus did not say that we should do this so that we may be the “children of God”, but that we “may be the children of your Father”.  In other words, God is already our Father in some sense (as in in Acts 17:28-29, Hebrews 12:9), but we must behave like him so that we can become his children in another sense.
• As many as receive Jesus Christ are given the power “to become” the sons of God, they are “born… of God”, born again through Christ (John 1:12-13).
• Those who are led by the Spirit of God become adopted as children of God under the covenant.

So when you said “A child of God is an heir of God” in your prior post, that is not universally true, because a literal child of God (offspring) may not be a covenant child of God (becoming an heir of God).

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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)?

As I mentioned before, the heirs are the children of God, by adoption (Romans 8:12-17).

The comment you quoted from me above was in response to your statement, “We have different opinions of what it means to ‘inherit all things’”.  How does your response above address what you believe it means to “inherit all things”?  How does that answer my question?

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.

There is a general sense of all being children of God (made in his image)

No, not just made in his image (Paul never mentioned that in Acts 17), but children of God in the sense that God is the Father of spirits and we are all the very same kind of being as God, his offspring.

And as I have said elsewhere (as in my posts in the Overthrowing the Church of God folder on 08/30/2025 and 09/06/2025), there is no way for Paul’s sermon to make any logical sense to the Athenians if he was merely teaching that we are all the “children of God (made in his image)” as a creation of God.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

and a more specific case 
(only those children by faith by adoption).  The passage of Romans 8:12-17 only refers to those by 
faith who are adopted in God's family. They are the heirs. You can refer to them as spiritual Israel 
(made up of both Israelite and Gentile believers).

So apparently you do accept the fact that not all children of God are heirs, and that Romans 8:12-17 refers to those who enter a covenant and are adopted as children of the covenant (born again) and become heirs of God. 

This is what I was trying to say all along.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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).

 Regarding the GotQuestions article:

The seven churches described in Revelation 2-3 are seven literal churches at the time that John 
the apostle was writing Revelation. Though they were literal churches in Asia Minor at that time, 
there is also spiritual significance for churches and believers today. The first purpose of the 
letters was to communicate with the literal churches and meet their needs. The second purpose is 
to reveal seven different types of individuals/churches throughout history and instruct them in 
God's truth.

I agree with the first purpose but not with all of the second purpose.

Some churches today are not defined by the descriptions below:

The church in Pergamos
"But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of 
Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things 
sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine 
of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

The church in Thyatira
"Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, 
which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, 
and to eat things sacrificed unto idols". 

Some of what is written to each church is repeated to the others. Some even believe the church 
of Philadelphia and Laodicea represent the last two churches in the final age leading to the 
return of Christ.

Jesus provides a promise to the believers in Philadelphia, which can be extended to all believers:  

"Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I 
will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which 
is coming down from out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name" 
(Revelation 3:12).

A similar theme is written in the letter to the church of Thyatira:

"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".

To Laodicea:
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come 
in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. 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". 

And to Sardis:
"He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name 
out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels". 
 
This theme of overcoming can be related to 2 Corinthians 6:16.  "… for ye are the temple of the 
living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, 
and they shall be my people".

One key description: "to those who overcome".  Not overcoming means missing out on the blessings 
and promises that the Lord has prepared for those who are faithful and endure to the end.  

These are they who will reside with God in his kingdom.  In LDS theology, many will not return to 
live with Heavenly Father. They had not overcome, endured to the end, or received eternal life.

But getting back to Revelation 3:9 ("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").

You 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".

I said the future promises that Jesus made to those who “overcome” are given to all the churches, as it says in each of these verses:  Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26-29, 3:5-6, 12-13, and 21-22.  They all say, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches”.  Those promises are not limited to the seven listed in the book of Revelation.

And those promises include humans (who overcome) sitting with God in his throne in the same way Jesus sits on the throne with his God and Father (Revelation 3:21).  They are with God in his throne doing what God does in his throne, ruling and reigning in his kingdom.

But that doesn’t mean the specifics of the other praises or admonishments that are given to the individual historic churches listed in the book of Revelation apply to future generations.  The Nicolaitans, the woman Jezebel, or the specific individuals involved in the synagogue of Satan (as it was called) may not exist by those names in future generations, but the same principles may apply.  Some of the problems were due to the willingness of the Christians to compromise with paganism or to succumb to harassment from outside sources, all of which should be watched for today.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

How do you believe women will be worshipped by those of the synagogue of Satan?

Would those in the synagogue of Satan come to the highest division of the Celestial Kingdom so 
they could worship before the feet of the exalted beings?

I have no idea why you keep asking about women.  Don’t you believe that women are among those who “overcome”?  I do.

As for your question about “the synagogue of Satan”, see below.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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."

This passage is about the restoration of Israel to their homeland: literal Gentiles assisting 
literal Israelites. I don't believe this is their gathering into the church.  But  maybe Later-day 
Saints interpret this as referring to the gathering of Israel in the latter days, where people 
from all nations are invited to come unto Christ and be part of His covenant people.

I think we can agree this has nothing to do with all Israelites being worshipped by those of the 
synagogue of Satan.

Of course I never said that Isaiah 49:23 had anything to do with the Israelites being worshipped by those of the synagogue of Satan.  You had asked if the gods of Psalm 89:8 were worshipped by anyone (Psalm 86:8 is where it says, “Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works”).

I responded by saying it doesn’t say in that passage, but elsewhere in the Bible it does refer to humans being worshipped by other humans, and I listed Revelation 3:8-9, Isaiah 49:23, and Isaiah 60:14 as examples of this.

The point is that God causes some humans to worship other humans, and the Bible shows this to be true.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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)

From what I understand of LDS theology, Heavenly Father (of Earth) is God over all the Earth and 
over all the worlds he has created.

As I said before, you clearly don’t understand LDS theology. 

And that God is the God of the earth is biblical, “For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called” (Isaiah 54:5).  So I’m sure you believe that too.  Is that how you refer to the God you worship?  The “Heavenly Father (of Earth)”?

But he is not only the God of this earth, but he is also the creator of worlds without number as noted in Moses 1:33, and thus the God of worlds without number.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Similarly, all the Gods before Earth's Heavenly Father are 
Gods over their own creations.  Each God has his own sphere of creations.

I explained last time why what you say above is contrary to latter-day scripture and what Joseph Smith taught.  Why don’t you engage what I said last time explain why you think I’m wrong (if you disagree)?

There is no such thing as “Gods before Earth’s Heavenly Father”.  The scriptures clearly teach that God is “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32).  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.  

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”.

If “all Gods… before you” became “kings and priests to God”, and if God is the “Eternal God of all other gods”, then there is simply no such thing as “Gods before Earth’s Heavenly Father” as you claim.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Abraham 3:19 only pertains to Earth's Heavenly Father's sphere.

According to who?  You?  CFR for where it says Abraham 3:19 “only pertains to Earth’s Heavenly Father’s sphere”.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Unless you believe Earth's Heavenly Father is more intelligent than his Father or all the other 
beings who obtained the title of "God" long before Earth's Heavenly Father did.

As explained above, there is no such thing as “all the other beings who obtained the title of ‘God’ long before Earth’s Heavenly Father did”.  If you think otherwise, then you’re going to need to show where the official teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints say this.  And if you try to use any of the references that you posted previously that I already discussed in my last post, then engage what I said about them in my last post and explain why anything I said was incorrect.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.'"

How is Earth's Heavenly Father regarded as the head God of his Father God or of all his spirit 
brothers and sisters (of the same Father) who also became Gods either before or after him?

CFR where the official teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals) teach that “God or of all his spirit brothers and sisters (of the same Father) who also became Gods either before or after him”.  

And if you try to use any of the references that you posted previously that I already discussed in my last post, then engage what I said about them in my last post and explain why anything I said was incorrect.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

God the Father was a Divine Being Before He Became Man

Do you believe Earth's Heavenly Father was a Divine Being before he was born to his heavenly parents?

CFR where the official teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach (in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals) that “Earth's Heavenly Father was… born to his heavenly parents”.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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. 

Were Heavenly Mother and Father of Earth able to become Gods and establish their kingdom without 
the aid of their heavenly parents?

Did you even read anything I said last time?  I don’t think so. I addressed this question already.  Reread my last post and engage what I said instead of repeating your theories.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.

When the LDS God the Father and God the Mother were once man and woman on some other world, were 
they already Gods in mortal bodies?

Did you even read anything I said last time?  I don’t think so. I addressed this question already. See my last post.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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.

You keep repeating yourself on this theme but I think it would help if you specifically qualify 
and limit this to the sphere of Earth's Heavenly Father.  He is not a God over all the gods (spirit 
children) which pertain to the other spheres of His Father God or all his other Brother and Sisters 
who became Gods and their subsequent children.

CFR for where official LDS doctrine teaches (in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals) that God “is not a God over all the gods (spirit children) which pertain to the other spheres of His Father God or all his other Brother and Sisters who became Gods and their subsequent children.”

And if you try to use any of the references that you posted previously that I already discussed in my last post, then engage what I said about them in my last post and explain why anything I said was incorrect.

And I keep repeating myself on this theme because you have not addressed how your version of “LDS theology” (as portrayed above) fits in with the official teachings of the Church, nor have you engaged any of my posts demonstrating how your version of “LDS theology” contradicts the scriptures and the teachings of Joseph Smith. 

And contrary to what you say above, the scriptures clearly teach that God is “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32). You seem to want us to believe otherwise, or you certainly want to portray it as such. 

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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?

What can I say. Mormonism also split up into various sects, while not as many, with different 
interpretations too. David Whitmer would even go as far as writing "An address to all believers 
in Christ", documenting why he believed Joseph Smith as a false prophet.

And so did the early Christian church split up into various sects (those of “Apollos” or of “Cephas”, Hymenaeus, Alexander, Phygellus and Hermogenes, Philetus, Diotrephes, and the Nicolaitans to name some). But the true church was distinguished from all the others by the fact that it was the only one led by the apostles who were called by Jesus Christ.

But again, you didn’t answer the question.  

1 Thessalonians 1:5-6 and 1 Corinthians 2:4-5 both explain that Paul’s teaching came not “in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance… with joy of the Holy Ghost”, and also that Paul’s preaching was “not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power.  That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God”.

How does the way Paul taught (as quoted above), using the power of God by revelation through the Holy Ghost, compare to the way the preaching is done in Christian sects of modern times?  

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

But from what I know, none of the Protestant sects teach we are literal children of heavenly 
parents, who became Gods some time in eternity past.

Right, Protestant sects today have rejected Paul’s teachings in the Bible where he taught that we are all the offspring of God.  The commentaries they write work hard to try to get around Paul’s actual teaching by making their readers believe that Paul was really saying we are all created by God out of nothing, because that’s what their traditions teach them.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Quote

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?

I'm not sure if you consider the Doctrine and Covenants as being a closed-canon as nothing has 
been added since 1978.  And as I said before, most of the D&C seems to deal with the time before 
the saints travelled to the Salt Lake Basin in 1847

This is such a weak criticism. Would you have considered the Bible to be a closed canon if you had lived at the time when Jesus was born, and hadn’t had any revelation added to scripture in the 400+ years since the time of Malachi?

Criticizing the church for not adding anything to the Doctrine and Covenants since the 1981 edition (44 years ago) seems to pale in comparison.  The point remains; the canon of scripture is open and always open.  God is eternal and so are his words, so we need to always be open and prepared to receive all he desires to give to us.

On 6/20/2025 at 1:39 PM, theplains said:

Yes. This would constitute a form of apostasy.  We find a little bit of apostasy in the letters 
to the seven churches too.

Denying the power of God isn’t just “a little bit of apostasy”, it’s a betrayal of all that Jesus taught and the established authority of his church.

[theplains]

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

PART 1

And what about the Ephraimites who were told that they would become a “multitude of Gentiles” (nations)?

God promised that the descendants of Abraham would be even greater than Ephraim. Abraham would be 
the father of many nations (Genesis 17:4-6; 22:17).
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

Get realistic here.  Point out where the people of Reuben, Simeon, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Manasseh, and Ephraim are right now and explain how they would know that they are of that lineage.  How would anyone really know without God’s intervention?

There is no scripture indicating those of Ephraim would determine the lineage of all other Israelites 
or be the primary tribe in the gathering of Israel.

I see these teachings from Religion 430-431 – Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual:

"Of the twelve tribes, the tribes of Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, will be gathered first 
and then direct the other tribes in their gathering (see JST, Genesis 48:5–11; Deuteronomy 33:16–17; 
D&C 133:30–39).

We discussed this before.

This assumes ALL of Ephraim and Manasseh are gathered first before they direct all other tribes 
in their gathering.  The early disciples, in the Great Commission, were not directed to gather 
all the Israelites first before they were to begin their evangelism to the Gentiles.

Those three scriptures the church manual provides don't symbolize either a physical gathering to 
a geographical location or a spiritual gathering to the church. 

The JST passage (Genesis 48) adds many verses that are not found in the KJV and they specifically 
refer to actions of Joseph, not to his two sons.

Deuteronomy 33:17 says, "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like 
the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and 
they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh".

Some other translations have "gore" instead of "push" and "wild ox" instead of "unicorns".  See 
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/deu/33/17/t_bibles_186017 

They tend to agree with the intent being made.  See Strong's Lexicon for "push" in that verse. 
H5055/H5056 (gore or push) is also used in other cross-references.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5055/esv/wlc/0-1/
 
"Now Zedekiah son of Kenaanah had made iron horns and he declared, "This is what the LORD says: 
'With these you will gore the Arameans until they are destroyed.'" (1 Kings 22:11)

"Now Zedekiah son of Kenaanah had made iron horns, and he declared, "This is what the LORD says: 
'With these you will gore the Arameans until they are destroyed.'" (2 Chronicles 18:10)

And "Through you we push back our enemies; through your name we trample our foes" (Psalm 44:5).

https://www.blueletterbible.org/niv/deu/33/17/p0/t_corr_186017

We find the same thing in Exodus 21:32,36:

"If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels 
of silver, and the ox shall be stoned".

"Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; 
he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own".

"Push" is a reference to gore.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/exo/21/32/t_conc_71032
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5055/kjv/wlc/0-1/
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/exo/21/36/t_conc_71036
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5056/kjv/wlc/0-1/

The passage is not teaching what the church believes.

Doctrine and Covenants 133:30-39 does not single out only Ephraim (excluding all other tribes) 
from being the servants of the Lord.

"It is essential in this dispensation that Ephraim stand in his place at the head, exercising the 
birthright in Israel which was given to him by direct revelation. Therefore, Ephraim must be 
gathered first to prepare the way, through the gospel and the priesthood, for the rest of the 
tribes of Israel when the time comes for them to be gathered to Zion".

Ephraim's exercise of the birthright in the Old Testament has nothing to do with the priesthood.  
He did not hold the priesthood, neither did Reuben.
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

We’ve already discussed this many times.  Regarding the gathering of Israel, you keep forgetting the process that the Lord details in scripture for the gathering.  Isaiah 11:11 says that in the “day” the Lord sets up an “ensign” to the nations, “that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people”.  And in verse 12 it says, “he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”

Yes. We've discussed it before.  Isaiah 11 deals with the root of Jesse, a descendant of Jesse. 
This is Christ.  The LDS Church teaches some of the chapter refers to Joseph Smith.  Joseph Smith 
does not spring forth out of Jesse.
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

The way the Lord is now recovering the remnant of his people the “second time” is the same pattern as the first time, as follows:

A.    The people of Israel are called out of spiritual bondage (figuratively Egypt).
B.    The people of Israel are taught the gospel of Jesus Christ.
C.    The people of Israel believe the words of Christ and are physically assembled in their places of worship.
D.    The people of Israel covenant with God and are sanctified, and come to know who they are.
E.    The people of Israel go to the house of the LORD (in one of God’s temples) and make covenants with him.
F.    Israel then goes forward to the lands of their inheritance.

In your version, you seem to go from A to F with no explanation on how they figure out who they are (to begin with) and how they get there in between.

You speak of "figuring out who they are".  The early disciples were not preoccupied with figuring 
out which people were literal Israelites and which were Gentiles.  They were pre-occupied with 
evangelism, not working to inform people that they were of a certain lineage.

The same manual mentioned above (Religion 430-431 – Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual) places 
great significance on Ephraim and seemingly excludes the contribution or importance of Manasseh.

"The great majority of those who become members of the Church are literal descendants of Abraham 
through Ephraim, son of Joseph. Those who are not literal descendants of Abraham and Israel must 
become such, and when they are baptized and confirmed they are grafted into the tree and are 
entitled to all the rights and privileges as heirs" (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:245–46)".

"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. "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".

I think this would explain why Ephraim and Manasseh need to be gathered first and then direct all 
the other tribes in their gathering (p.s. this is a reference to those of literal lineage, not 
those whose blood changes – see below).

Receiving the Holy Ghost has a different effect upon those who are the literal seed of Abraham as 
opposed to those who are not.

"… for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; 
and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; while the effect 
of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed 
of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by 
the Holy Ghost. In such a case, there may be more of a powerful effect upon the body, and visible 
to the eye, than upon an Israelite, while the Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile 
in pure intelligence" (Smith, Teachings, 149–50).

Maybe that is one of the benefits of the patriarchal blessing – a non-Israelite (Gentile) would 
be declared to really be of Abrahamic descent.

Latter-day Saints fail to realize that the New Testament does not attribute salvific significance 
to the temple after Christ's Atonement. The focus of salvation moves away from the temple and 
toward the person of Christ. This is foreshadowed in Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman 
(John 4:20-23). And then we have the teaching in Hebrews 9 and 10; where people no longer need 
earthly high priests to make an offering for their owns sins and for the people.

It's evident that the LDS temple evolved out of the Masonic Lodge.
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

Ephraim and Manasseh are the ones who “push the people together to the ends of the earth”.  They can’t do that unless they return to God’s covenant first and come to recognize who they are so that they can assist in getting God’s people together again.

The early disciples did not need to recognize who they were (figure out what literal tribe they 
were from) in order to bring people into the church of Christ.

I already explained this "push" earlier.  It's really "gore", a negative connotation.
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

The point of Jeremiah 16:14-17 is that the Lord says he will prepare his servants (referred to as “fishers” and “hunters” in the verses).  He will “send for many fishers” and “send for many hunters” so that they can “hunt” and “fish” and he will send them out to specifically find and gather the scattered lost tribes of Israel.

You keep conflating the return of Israel to their land (Jeremiah 16) with the gathering of people, 
declared to be literal descendants of one of the twelve tribes via a patriarchal blessing, into 
Christ's church.

The context is literal Israelites being gathered to their literal land. 

"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" (verses 14-15).

Focus on the word "again".  The first time was a literal gathering of the Israelites to a specific 
land. That is the context of the passage. The similar message is repeated in Jeremiah 23:7. The 
regathering of Israel and Judah back to their land is prophesied again in 30:2-3. You can't get any 
clearer than that.

Unfortunately, you do the same thing as Jehovah's Witnesses do with their interpretation of 
Revelation 7:1-4. They take the 144,000 literally but the twelve named tribes as figurative.  

Latter-day Saints repeat the pattern for the two sticks in Ezekiel. Instead of accepting the 
biblical explanation (the sticks representing the house of Israel and the house of Judah being 
reunited back in their own land; sticks held by Ezekiel), they take it as two books (not a 
reunification and not held by Ezekiel) that would be written hundreds and thousands of years later.

When we come into the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus, the "fishers of men" becomes a 
gathering into his church, but not to a specific land of inheritance.  And these fishers were not 
initially or predominantly those of Ephraim or Manasseh.
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

 Who are these servants (the “hunters” and “fishers”) that the Lord sends for to “hunt” and “fish” for the tribes of Israel specifically?  Protestant Christians?  Catholics?  Government officials?  Who are they?

Jeremiah 16 is not about evangelism post-1830.  See my earlier comments.
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

You don’t believe this because you are opposed to the Lord’s restored church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I don't believe Christ's church was destroyed as Gospel Principles taught in an earlier edition.  
The current version removed that statement.

The February 2005 New Era article "What Happened to Christ's Church?" does not use the word 
"destroyed". Instead, it says the church disappeared from the Americas by about 400 A.D.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2005/02/what-happened-to-christs-church?lang=eng
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

And who are these servants (the “hunters” and “fishers”) that “hunt” and “fish” for the tribes of Israel specifically?  Protestant Christians?  Catholics?  Government officials?  Telemarketing people?  Gallup Poll employees?

I know who they are, they are the missionaries and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the ones the Lord has called specifically to gather Israel, and that’s why it is one of the priorities of President Nelson.

I provided some comments earlier, but you seem focused on gathering Israel instead of gathering
Israelites and Gentiles.
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

Not now, but it certainly was that way prior to Israel breaking their covenant with God on Mount Sinai.  We already discussed and settled this.  See my post on 03/16/2024, where I provided ample evidence that the firstborn son was given a right to the priesthood in ancient Bible history prior to Israel breaking the covenant that God made with them on Mount Sinai.  Quit trying to reboot the thread without dealing with things that we have already discussed.

I read your post.   The right of the firstborn is not the priesthood. If it was, then Levi would 
not have it.  Reuben had the right of the firstborn but he did not have any priesthood during the 
time he held it.  The right of the firstborn had no bearing on whether Peter, Paul, etc. could 
preach the gospel or baptize. 

Ephraim had several sons. Only one of them held the right of the firstborn in Ephraim's immediate 
family.  None of them had the priesthood.  Each firstborn child born to each of Ephraim's sons 
had the right of the firstborn in their respective families.  The second born son did not have 
the right of the firstborn unless it was forfeited in some way by the first.  Despite what you 
think, all the worthy male descendants of Ephraim did not hold the priesthood.

If I am correct, neither the Bible or Book of Mormon specifically identify any disciple who was 
of the tribe of Ephraim; the same for Doctrine and Covenants.  I think Doctrine and Covenants 133:30-34 
is often cited in the context of the gathering of Israel but those events of verses 30-34 happen 
in the future, after Christ returns (see verses 18-24).
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

You say that “The northern kingdom (representative of Ephraim) is never specifically referred to as the flock of God”, and you quoted Zechariah 10:3 selectively.  But you didn’t read on to verses 6-7 which says, “And I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them again to place them; for I have mercy upon them: and they shall be as though I had not cast them off: for I am the Lord their God, and will hear them.  And they of Ephraim shall be like a mighty man, and their heart shall rejoice as through wine: yea, their children shall see it, and be glad; their heart shall rejoice in the Lord.” 

So Ephraim is indeed included back into the flock of God.

Yes. In the future. This is seen in Jeremiah 3.  The house of Israel and the house of Judah were 
likened to sisters (verse 7).  The northern kingdom was given a bill of divorce (verse 8). In the 
future, they will be reunited in their land.

"In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together 
out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers".

A similar thing is taught in Ezekiel 37.

"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: And join them one to another into one 
stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.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. And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before 
their eyes. And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel 
from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them 
into their own land". 
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

  Remember, Israelites were sown among the Gentiles, and they are called “Gentiles”.  In Genesis 48:19, it says (of Jacob blessing Ephraim):  "And his father refused and said, I know it, my son, I know it; he [Manasseh] also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; but truly his younger brother [Ephraim] shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of Gentiles."

So when Isaiah quotes the Lord as saying, “I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders” (see Isaiah 49:18-23), he is including Ephraim in that prophesy as “his seed” became a “multitude of Gentiles”.

Don't forget all the other nine tribes and all those who are not of the lineage of Abraham.  Not 
all Gentiles are Israelites.  

You are free to believe an Israelite is a Gentile because he doesn't know his lineage and then 
stops being a Gentile when he learns of his lineage, but you are thinking in human terms. God knows 
if a person is a Gentile or an Israelite.
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

The symbolism of the brazen sea is exactly the same, both under the old covenant and the new, for purification and cleansing.  But the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ brought in the new covenant, and it also opened the way for the work on behalf of the dead by Jesus preaching the gospel to the dead and providing a way for their redemption.  It also opened the way for all of us to pass through the veil of the temple.

If there is any “symbolism” in the prior restrictions under the old covenant compared to the freedom provided in the new, it is that Christ provided the way for all of us (living and dead) to access the holy place of the temple.

We don't need brazen seas, bronze lavers, or earthly high priests. Christ tore the veil in the 
temple. We can enter the holiest of holies by the blood of Christ, not by passing through LDS 
temple veils and verbal passcodes.  The veil in the Old Testament becomes Christ's flesh in the 
New.  We are not purified by entering the brazen sea or bronze lavers.

By the way, Old Testament priests did wash in a bronze laver before entering the tabernacle to 
minister (Exodus 30-18-21), but this is not the molten sea upon twelve oxen.  And they were not 
washing themselves in proxy manner for dead or living people.
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

Under the new covenant after the time of Christ, the priesthood was “changed”, and Jesus opened the way for all to enter into the holy of holies, returning to the people the same privileges that the Lord was trying to offer Israel prior to them breaking their covenant.

The LDS Church does not currently recognize a royal priesthood of women.  This is clearly taught 
in 1 Peter 2:5,9 and Revelation 1:6.
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

Prior to the law of Moses they were obviously commanded to make offerings and sacrifices, or else why would they all do it the same way and with the same intent?  Do you believe the Lord simply liked the idea and copied what men came up with on their own when he instituted the law of Moses later on?

The Law of Moses does not exist on earth before God gave it at Mount Sinai and afterwards. 
 
From a biblical perspective, the sacrificial practices before Sinai were not widespread among all 
the Israelites as they would later become under the Mosaic Law. The patriarchs, like Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob, did offer sacrifices, but these were more personal and familial rather than 
national.

Regarding the Passover, it was indeed instituted as a one-time event in Egypt, but it became an 
annual observance for the Israelites to commemorate their deliverance from bondage.

The formal system of sacrifices, as a national practice, was established with the Law given at 
Sinai. Before that, the instances of sacrifice were more individual and specific to certain events 
or commands from God. 

There is only passage in the Pearl of Great Price to indicate Adam and Eve were commanded to offer 
the firstlings of their flocks to the Lord (Moses 5:4-7).  This does not align with a statue's 
depiction that used to reside (or maybe still does?) in the Visitors' Center on Temple Square 
showing them offering vegetables or fruits on an altar with a living lamb next to it.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56085-temple-square-art-work/?do=findComment&comment=1209059315
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

What are you trying to say here, that Cain’s offering was rejected by God because it was fruit?  And Adam and Eve should not have been depicted as offering the firstfruits of their crops?

Please demonstrate that God rejected Cain’s offering because it was fruit.

Do you not realize that God also commanded firstfruit offerings (Deuteronomy 26:1-2, Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Numbers 18:13)?

No, I was just wondering if that statue still stands in the Visitor's Center. You figure if Adam 
and Eve's sacrifices were important, it would still be there, with the little lamb next to the 
altar. From what is recorded, the Lord did not command this fruit or vegetable offering by Adam 
and Eve.

I don't believe Cain's offering was rejected because it was fruit.  It could have been vegetables 
too.   "Firstfruit offerings" does not mean only "fruit", as in apples or figs.
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

Since God had revealed that practice early on (during the life of Adam and Eve), why in the world would you suppose that Adam and Eve would not have passed down those commandments to the rest of their children?  Why keep it a secret from the rest of the world as you seem to suppose?  It was certainly a commandment known of Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jethro, Aaron, and the Israelites prior to the law of Moses.

If they were applying the same practice as today, the secrets in the temple ceremonies would not 
have been passed on to all their children if they were not temple worthy.  We have a lot of 
sacred/not secret details of the Old Testament temple.

After all the temples that were supposedly built and then destroyed in the flood, Noah does not 
build a temple afterward. There is no temple building recorded amongst the Jaredites either.
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

It is true that we don’t need a Levitical high priest anymore, but Hebrews 10:19-21 demonstrates that your belief that we enter in “without the veil” is totally incorrect.  Christ made it possible for all of us to pass “through the veil” (Hebrews 10:19-21) and go into the holy of holies in the temple of God.  It can’t be “without the veil” if we go “through the veil”.

As I mentioned earlier, the veil is Christ's flesh.  It's not an LDS temple veil that people must 
pass through with secret phrases and handshakes.
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

I don’t see any restriction on the number of temples in Revelation 3:12. If Christ says it is the “temple of my God”, it can be anywhere or any one of God’s temples.

We discussed Revelation 3:9-12 before.

"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. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour 
of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, 
I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. 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".

It doesn't say "temples of my God" or "cities of my God".

Back on March 30, you said,

Quote

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.

How do believe the female members of the church of Philadelphia and other churches will be worshipped?

Where will those of the synagogue of Satan be going so that they can worship before the feet of 
these others, whom you believe are exalted beings?
 

On 9/7/2025 at 10:26 PM, InCognitus said:

Where has God ever said he would quit sending apostles and prophets to direct his church?  He hasn’t ever said that.  He has actually said the opposite, that apostles and prophets would continue “till we all come to a unity of the faith”.  So why don’t these individual groups read and use what God has actually said in those 66 books to see that God would continue in what he has done all along, through living apostles and prophets?

Prophets and apostles function is various ways so I believe they exist in non-LDS churches.  But 
I don't believe people exist today who exhibit the signs of an apostle as shown in the Book of 
Acts.

"We are 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".  

The foundation has already been laid and the church of Christ has never been destroyed.

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and 
teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the 
body of Christ".

But we don't specifically identify John Doe or Terry Smith as Apostle John Doe and Prophet Terry 
Smith.

Not sure why the LDS Church would limit itself to only 15 apostles when 15 apostles were not 
appointed by Christ in the New Testament Church and 0 apostles were present in the churches that 
supposedly existed amongst the Nephites and Jaredites.

END OF PART 1 - TO BE CONTINUED

[ZealouslyStriving]

18 minutes ago, theplains said:

The LDS Church does not currently recognize a royal priesthood of women.  This is clearly taught 
in 1 Peter 2:5,9 and Revelation 1:6.

If you only knew.

(I'll leave you to your marathon discussion with others. I don't know how all y'all do it.😵‍💫)

[theplains]

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

PART 2 OF 2

 

So, there are various groups of people that make up the bride of Christ, but ultimately it will only be the faithful who come to the wedding feast wearing the wedding garment.

Does this include the terrestrial and telestial inhabitants or do you believe they are not included 
because they were unfaithful?
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

When did that apostasy occur?  Where does Revelation 13 or 19 say anything about an apostasy?  (It doesn’t).  That apostasy is in the past because it was already beginning in Paul’s day.

Let's not forget about the apostasy which occurred in the LDS Church (D&C 52:1-6; 56:14-15; 64:30-36; 
101:1-2,6,41; 103:1-14; 105:2-6,9).  This resulted in the expulsion from various lands until they 
found relative safety in Utah.

For context of what I mean about apostasy, see Jeremiah 2:19, 5:6, and Hosea 14:4 (ESV).

"Your evil will chastise you, and your apostasy will reprove you. Know and see that it is evil 
and bitter for you to forsake the Lord your God; the fear of me is not in you, declares the Lord 
God of hosts".

"Therefore a lion from the forest shall strike them down; a wolf from the desert shall devastate 
them. A leopard is watching their cities; everyone who goes out of them shall be torn in pieces, 
because their transgressions are many, their apostasies are great".

"I will heal their apostasy; I will love them freely, for my anger has turned from them".

This past apostasy pales in comparison to the deception that is coming in the future (Revelation 
13 and 19), with the lying signs and wonders of the beast and false prophet to deceive those on 
the earth.  They will even gather armies to fight against Christ in a great battle.

According to what is recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 62:6 (given in 1831), the Lord promised 
to preserve the faithful in Missouri, the land of their inheritance ("Behold, I, the Lord, have 
brought you together that the promise might be fulfilled, that the faithful among you should be 
preserved and rejoice together in the land of Missouri. I, the Lord, promise the faithful and 
cannot lie").  

Maybe the Mormon sect (the Community of Christ) sees itself as a fulfillment of this.
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

If Christ didn’t set up the church as an institution, then what is this organized leadership that Paul said would continue until all come in the unity of the faith?  And who are you to say of an apostle or prophet (a member of that body), “I have no need of thee”?

There are many organized Christian groups all around the world with Christ as their head operating 
independently of each other.  They don't need to form one large overarching institution to manage 
them if they are faithful in teaching the Word of God.

Peter did not direct Paul where to go and Paul did not direct Peter where to go.

The early disciples of Jesus established several organized groups and structures as Christianity 
began to spread in the first century. While they didn't form "denominations" like modern churches, 
they created communities with leadership roles and organizational patterns to guide believers. 

1] Local House Churches
Primary structure of the early Christian movement.  Met in homes (e.g., Acts 2:46; Romans 16:5). 
Each city or region often had multiple small house churches. Gathered for teaching, prayer, 
fellowship, breaking of bread (communion), and worship.

2] The Jerusalem Church
The first organized Christian community (Acts 2–6).  Led by the apostles, with James (the brother 
of Jesus) emerging as a key leader (Acts 15). Served as the mother church for other Christian 
groups. Functioned as a kind of council or headquarters for early doctrinal decisions (e.g., the 
Jerusalem Council in Acts 15).

3] Leadership Roles Created
The apostles and early disciples created several roles to organize and shepherd the growing 
communities:
A] Apostles
Witnesses to Jesus' resurrection and authoritative leaders.Traveled to spread the gospel and 
establish churches (e.g., Paul, Peter, John).
B] Elders (Presbyters)
Local leaders or overseers of churches. Shared teaching and governance responsibilities (Acts 14:23; 
Titus 1:5).
C] Bishops (Overseers)
Sometimes synonymous with "elders" early on, later became a distinct role. Oversaw multiple 
churches in a region as the church grew (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1–7).
D] Deacons
Appointed to serve the physical and logistical needs of the church (Acts 6:1–6; 1 Timothy 3:8–13). 
Freed up the apostles to focus on teaching and prayer.

4] Missionary Teams & Networks
Led by figures like Paul, Barnabas, Silas, and others.  Planted churches across the Roman Empire 
(Asia Minor, Greece, etc.). Maintained letters and correspondence for instruction and correction 
(many of which became New Testament books).

5] Councils and Gatherings
The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) is the first example of organized decision-making for doctrinal 
issues. Set a model for later church councils.

If I am not mistaken, I do not find these groups and structures in the Book of Mormon church after 
Christ supposedly appeared to them. After Christ's visit to the Nephites, the Book of Mormon 
doesn't provide a detailed breakdown of church leadership roles like elders and high priests in 
the immediate chapters following His visit in 3 Nephi.  The people were instructed to meet together 
often to pray, partake of the sacrament, and support one another in their faith (3 Nephi 18:22), 
but nothing about the Nephite temples.

Moroni 3-6, likely set around A.D. 400 finally includes instructions on how priests and teachers 
were ordained.  Bishops, high priests, prophets, and apostles are not mentioned either.

The immediacy of The Great Commission, as we see in the Bible to make disciples of all nations, 
is absent from the Book of Mormon.  There, the immediate command by Jesus to preach the gospel is 
more focused on the people in the land at that time, as seen in 3 Nephi 28:23, where the disciples 
go forth among all the people of Nephi in their land. 

The broader mission to the rest of the world, as mentioned in 3 Nephi 28:29, is described as a 
future event. But its focus is on the special three Nephite disciples ministering to the scattered 
Israelite tribes and other tongues and peoples throughout the world (the Gentiles).

Apparently the church was still destroyed with all this evangelism, including the addition of the 
apostle John, who is taught to have remained on earth to bring souls to God (Doctrine and Covenants 
7:1-3).  Add to this no historical or extra scriptural evidence for this significant evangelism 
by these four people.  Supposedly they were keeping their identity and preaching a secret.
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

Do any of the sources from the early Christians quoted above sound like they are teaching “believers sharing in certain aspects of divine life or nature without becoming a deity”?

We are created in the image of God but we don't have a divine nature in the sense that we are a
God (a god).

I don't believe men and women can be formed into Gods but I understand this is an LDS doctrine.

"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" (Isaiah 44:6).

"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 44:8).

"I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast 
not known me" (Isaiah 45:5).

"For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; 
he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; 
and there is none else" (Isaiah 45:18).

"Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from 
ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the Lord? and there is no God else beside 
me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends 
of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else" (Isaiah 45:21-22). 

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is 
none like me" (Isaiah 46:9).
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

None, obviously, since God the Father is “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32).  He is the “head God” as Joseph Smith taught.

"The head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council… The head God called to-gether the Gods 
and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand counsellors sat at the head in yonder 
heavens, and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at that time" (King Follett 
Discourse).

"…the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was…" (Doctrine and Covenants 
121:32). 

"In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and 
concocted a plan to create the world and people it." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 5). 

https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/pdf/JoD06/JoD06_0005.pdf

Are you one of these Gods (i.e. gods) that were at this grand council?

Does "head God" mean he chaired this grand council or that it mean the highest and greatest of 
all the Gods in eternity past?
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

Reread what I posted last time and engage what I said rather than just repeating your distorted views of Latter-day Saint doctrines.  I already addressed your mischaracterization of our beliefs.

Do you believe all the church's teachings on the plurality of Gods and specifically what Brigham 
Young taught?  ("How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were 
not Gods and worlds and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing 
through").
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

Perhaps the “LDS Jesus constitutes is a different Jesus” than what modern Christians believe and teach about him (the creedal Jesus), but what Latter-day Saints teach about Jesus is not different than the biblical Jesus and the teachings about Jesus from the earliest Christians. 

I posted about this previously, and you agreed that some of the early Christian teachings about Jesus sounded a lot like what you quoted from the Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, Chapter 4.  You said, (referring to a quote from  Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, paragraph 2), “What he said seems to align with what the seminary manual mentions”.  And I also posted a similar statement from Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 2.

Now who exactly is teaching a “different Jesus”?

The LDS teaching that Jesus is the first spirit child born to heavenly parents who became a God 
in his pre-mortal life is not found in any scripture.
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

CFR for where the LDS church officially teaches (in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals) what you claim to “understand of LDS theology” as stated above.  And if you try to use any of the references that you posted previously that I already discussed in my last post, then engage what I said about them in my last post and explain why anything I said was incorrect.

Your caricature of LDS theology doesn’t agree with Joseph Smith’s teachings that “all Gods” before us were made “kings and priests to God”, nor does it agree with what the scriptures clearly teach, that God is “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32).

You asked for CFRs for official LDS Church teachings of what I claim to understand of LDS theology.  
I'll provide some here.  I'm pretty sure it will cover all your other CFRs.

You claim you want official teachings, but you are quick to discount what the LDS Church has taught 
in the past (through General Conferences, sermons by LDS leaders in the past and present, and books 
written by former leaders and published by the church's publication arm – Deseret).

I suspect they are not found in more recent publications because the LDS Church has de-emphasized 
them or they were deemed to be false and leading members astray. You can decide for yourself.

But Mormonism is rather a large puzzle, comprising not one piece that encompasses all its teachings, 
but many pieces.

Your use of the word "official" is too narrow, maybe even limiting yourself to the past 20 years.  
If you narrow yourself down to a limited time frame, you could even possibly reject the teaching 
of exaltation unless you find something recent that teaches that you can become a God and have 
spirit children of your own.

I don't think past teachings were classified as being official or unofficial but rather as being 
true or false.

So I'll try to give you some of the smaller pieces to reveal how I understand the LDS Church.  
Maybe they are all false and the LDS Church leaders were leading all their members astray all 
during that time.

1] The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother.  I would say there is more than one wife for the LDS version 
of Heavenly Father because of his polygamy (D&C 132:30-31).

Later in verses 61-63, it is said that the Law of the Priesthood permitted certain men to marry 
ten virgins to multiply and replenish the earth and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds.  
The work of the Father is continued in them for that is the work that Heavenly Father himself 
engaged with all his wives.

2] The teaching by Joseph Smith that God the Father had a father before him.

3] The unscriptural teaching that Jesus was the first spirit child born of heavenly parents who 
became a God in his pre-mortal life.

4] Joseph Smith's teaching in the plurality of Gods and that God had a father.

5] Former LDS Presidency member George Q. Cannon's teaching in Gospel Truths, volume 1.  Here is 
the full quote.

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).

6] The church's teachings throughout their early history that Heavenly Father is an exalted man.  

7] That our Earth's inhabitants are passing through their progression to Godhood as countless 
other worlds have already entered into their exaltation.  And this is just for Heavenly Father's 
realm, excluding the realms of all the other beings who became God before him.  Unless you believe 
Heavenly Father is greater than Jesus's Grandfather God.

LORD HAS CREATED MANY EARTHS. The Lord never created anything for nothing, nor out of nothing. 
Everything has a place and was created for a purpose. Man was not created to be destroyed. This 
work has been going on forever. There never was a time when there was not an earth; never a time 
when there were not people on it, for that is the work of the Lord, and the heavens are innumerable, 
and so are the earths that have passed away to their exaltation and glory. As they pass away others 
take their places. This is not the only world.

Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 1, Chapter 4, Our First and Second Estates.

https://archive.org/stream/Doctrines-of-Salvation-volume-1-joseph-fielding-smith/JFSDoctrinesofSalvationv1_djvu.txt
https://archive.org/details/Doctrines-of-Salvation-volume-1-joseph-fielding-smith
https://ia800905.us.archive.org/34/items/Doctrines-of-Salvation-volume-1-joseph-fielding-smith/JFSDoctrinesofSalvationv1.pdf

8] Joseph Smith's teaching that God has not existed as God from all eternity to eternity. Gospel 
Principles has him climbing a ladder until he reaches the top.

9] Gospel Principles has the spirit children of Heavenly Father (of Earth) progressing to become 
Gods themselves, having spirit children of their own which will have the same relationship to them
as they have to Heavenly Father.  In other words, they will have the same relationship to you as you
have with your Father.  That is, they will worship you instead of their Grandfather.  After all, you don't
worship your GrandFather God because he did not create you.

10] Brigham Young's teaching that there never was a time when there were no Gods and worlds.

11] Joseph Fielding Smith's teaching in a plurality of past Gods.  "We were begotten by our Father 
in heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His 
Father, and again He was begotten by a still more ancient father and so on from generation to 
generation".

Doctrines of Salvation, 3-volume set
https://archive.org/download/JFSDoctrinesOfSalvation/JFSDoctrinesofSalvationv1-3.pdf

12] Teaching by James Talmage that Heavenly Father (and by extension his wives) passed through 
death, resurrection, and their exaltation.

"It would appear unnecessary to cite at greater length in substantiating our affirmation that 
Jesus Christ was God even before He assumed a body of flesh. During that antemortal period there 
was essential difference between the Father and the Son, in that the former had already passed 
through the experiences of mortal life, including death and resurrection, and was therefore a 
Being possessed of a perfect, immortalized body of flesh and bones, while the Son was yet 
unembodied.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/jesus-the-christ/chapter-4?lang=eng

13] The ultimate work of each God for each of his spirit children (past, present, and future) is 
found in Gospel Principles: "All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help 
his children become like him—a god".
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

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”.

Following what LDS leaders have taught in the past, I don't see that the LDS Heavenly Father (of 
our Earth) is the head God over his Father God (Jesus' Grandfather God to simplify things). Maybe 
by "head God" you are actually referring to the God who was chairing this grand council, but you 
never identify who these other exalted beings (the Gods) were which participated in the council 
before this particular Earth or other worlds were created. Unless you believe the "head God" means 
Heavenly Father of our Earth is greater than his Father God and his Grandfather God, and his Great 
Grandfather God, etc etc, going backwards into infinity.
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

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”.

He says “all Gods” before us have become “kings and priests to God”, the head of all Gods.

What could be more clear than that?

Which Gods before you have become kings and priests to our Earth's Heavenly Father?  Are you 
referring to a teaching from a previous LDS leader who taught that other worlds created by our 
Earth's Heavenly Father were peopled by Him, had an Atonement already provided for them, were 
resurrected, and already entered their exaltation after Judgment Day happened on those worlds?

I'm assuming you don't believe our Earth's Heavenly Father is head over his own Father and Mother 
God, right?
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

I believe God has always had the title of God as the most advanced and most intelligent being in existence, but he “became” our God in relationship to us, as stated as follows: 

“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)

I'm assuming you're speaking of only the realms belonging to our Earth's Heavenly Father.

Ok. You're clearer now.  You believe Earth's Heavenly Father advanced and we have the same privilege 
to advance like he did.

How did this God advance to become the most advanced and intelligent being in existence?  Is he 
more advanced and intelligent than his Father and Mother God before him?
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe that if you receive “eternal life” that it would mean that you have had life eternally?  If so, then fine, your thinking is consistent.  But if you don’t believe that you have had life eternally, then why would you imagine that the phrase “eternal God” means that he has been God eternally?  You aren’t being logical or consistent.

Us having eternal life does not mean we can become beings who are referred to as Eternal Gods 
because we are not Gods now, nor do we become Gods when he have eternal life.

You believe that most, if not all, spirit children of heavenly parents will live eternally in 
one of God's mansions  but they supposedly already existed from all eternity past before even 
being born to heavenly parents.

We can have eternal life right now, before we die.

"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:15).

Those who don't have eternal life will perish.

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them 
out of my hand" (John 10:28).
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

Obviously according to Joseph Smith and other teachings of the church, God the Father instituted his own laws or utilized laws that are eternal.

CFR for where official LDS Theology (in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals) teaches that God had “laws that he obtained from his own Father so he could also advance to Godhood”.

Earlier you said, 

Quote

I believe God has always had the title of God as the most advanced and most intelligent being in existence, but he "became" our God in relationship to us, as 
stated as follows: 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)

This means he didn't create his own laws so that he could advance by them.  Likewise, we don't 
create our own laws so that, as you believe, we can advance to Godhood like Heavenly Father advanced 
to his Godhood.

You said laws are eternal but these laws, following LDS theology, already existed long before 
Heavenly Father became a God.  Some unknown God, whom the LDS cannot identify, created these laws.  
He did not need to advance to Godhood by his own laws.

Or maybe you believe you can create your own laws which you know you can keep and then claim you 
are advanced and the most intelligent because you scored a perfect, 100% obedience to all of them.

But then again, who atoned for the sins of Heavenly Mother and Father?
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

You seem to be ignoring the meaning of “all other gods”.

CFR on where I “seem to be referring only to the sphere in which you reside”.

Can you clear this up for me.

Do you believe Heavenly Father of our Earth is greater than all the beings of all the other spheres 
which exist, who became Gods before he became a God?  Or do you believe that Heavenly Father is 
greater than only all his spirit children, in his sphere, who believe they will become Gods?
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

Besides, I have already answered that question many times.  Quoting from my post on 03/03/2025, “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.”

There's a difference between how and when the LDS Heavenly Father and Mother "became Gods" versus 
when, after they were resurrected and exalted to Godhood, they "came to be Gods in relation to us" 
by becoming heavenly parents of spirit children.
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

The strangest part about that Christianity.com article is the title, “What Does it Mean to Be the Offspring of God?”  It’s funny (strange) because the article never provides that meaning, it doesn’t answer the question that is asked in the title, it never provides a definition of the Greek word génos that is translated as “offspring” in those verses.

See the first few lines of the article and a few paragraphs afterwards:

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/god/what-does-it-mean-to-be-the-offspring-of-god.html

At the moment of salvation, we become God's children. Our broken relationship with the Creator of 
our souls is made right by placing faith in Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. We are God's 
offspring because we are made in His Image.

The Stoic philosophers believed that human beings are God's offspring; however, despite believing 
that humanity was God's offspring, the Stoics did not believe in the God of the Bible. When the 
Stoic philosopher Aratus wrote of "We are his offspring," Aratus was referring to the Greek God, 
Zeus — not the true God of the Bible (Ibid.).

After Paul makes reference to Aratus' quote, he connects it with the true God of the Bible. Paul 
says, "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like 
gold or silver or stone — an image made by human design and skill" (Acts 17:29).

Paul was telling the philosophers that mankind is indeed the offspring of God because we are created 
by Him; however, mankind was not created by a mute idol in the center of Athens. To worship an idol 
was to sin against the true God of Heaven.
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

Of course, Latter-day Saints doctrine doesn’t say exactly how we are the offspring of God, so you don’t have to believe it the way you describe it above (I certainly don’t take it that way).

Before they became Gods on some other world, did the man and woman (who later became the heavenly 
parents of Earth) marry and have literal physical children on that world?
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

These are also children of God:

• All of us, we are all the “offspring of God” (Acts 17:28-29).
• All of us, for God is the “Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12:9).
• All of us in one sense, but only those who follow God by behaving like him in another sense, because Jesus said we must follow God our “Father” by loving our enemies and doing good to them that hate us, so “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 4:45). Note that Jesus did not say that we should do this so that we may be the “children of God”, but that we “may be the children of your Father”.  In other words, God is already our Father in some sense (as in in Acts 17:28-29, Hebrews 12:9), but we must behave like him so that we can become his children in another sense.
• As many as receive Jesus Christ are given the power “to become” the sons of God, they are “born… of God”, born again through Christ (John 1:12-13).
• Those who are led by the Spirit of God become adopted as children of God under the covenant.

So when you said “A child of God is an heir of God” in your prior post, that is not universally true, because a literal child of God (offspring) may not be a covenant child of God (becoming an heir of God).

I focus primarily on the covenant sons of God (the heirs, the adopted ones). 
 
In LDS theology, this would mean that those who are not exalted (those who don't become Gods) are 
not born of God – they are not the sons of God by adoption (Romans 8:14-17).
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

So apparently you do accept the fact that not all children of God are heirs, and that Romans 8:12-17 refers to those who enter a covenant and are adopted as children of the covenant (born again) and become heirs of God. 

This is what I was trying to say all along.

I'd like to correct your choice of words.  Instead, you should say, "All covenant children of God 
are heirs".  In LDS theology, this is only for those who become Gods.
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

I responded by saying it doesn’t say in that passage, but elsewhere in the Bible it does refer to humans being worshipped by other humans, and I listed Revelation 3:8-9, Isaiah 49:23, and Isaiah 60:14 as examples of this.

The point is that God causes some humans to worship other humans, and the Bible shows this to be true.

I re-asked my question about Revelation 3:12 in my response to part 1 so I'll address the passages 
in Isaiah here.

"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 49:23).

 "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" (Isaiah 60:14).
 
This is a form of giving honor, not worship like God receives.

There are many other passages in the scripture where humans bow down to humans, but this is not 
"worship" as we ascribe to God.

One prominent one, specifically using "worship", is in the New Testament.

"And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him".

This verse describes Cornelius bowing down to Peter. However, Peter quickly corrects him, emphasizing 
that he is just a man and not to be worshipped. This highlights the importance of worship being 
directed to God rather than humans.

Another instance in the New Testament where someone bows down to another person is in the Book of 
Revelation. In Revelation 22:8-9, John, overwhelmed by the visions he has seen, falls down to 
worship the angel. However, the angel quickly corrects him, saying that he is a fellow servant 
and that worship should be directed to God alone.

In the Bible, bowing down to others as a sign of respect, greeting, pleading, or desperation (some 
examples: Genesis 18:2; Genesis 33:3; 1 Samuel 24:8; Mark 5:22; Matthew 18:26; John 11:32), rather 
than worship.

See Gospel Truths, by George Q. Cannon, on page 135:

"The worship of the true God has been revealed to us. He has revealed Himself in our day. Mortal 
men have beheld the Eternal Father and the Redeemer, Jesus. And we know that they live. We know 
also that our Father in heaven should be the object of our worship. He will not have any divided 
worship. We are commanded to worship Him, and Him only".
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

As I said before, you clearly don’t understand LDS theology. 

And that God is the God of the earth is biblical, “For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called” (Isaiah 54:5).  So I’m sure you believe that too.  Is that how you refer to the God you worship?  The “Heavenly Father (of Earth)”?

But he is not only the God of this earth, but he is also the creator of worlds without number as noted in Moses 1:33, and thus the God of worlds without number.

Yes, but in the context of LDS theology, this is in his own realm.  The LDS Heavenly Father of 
our Earth did not create worlds without number in the realm of his Father or any of the beings 
who became Gods before the LDS Heavenly Father of our Earth was born to his heavenly parents.

You'll understand what I mean when you stop looking at only the realm you live in.
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

There is no such thing as “Gods before Earth’s Heavenly Father”.  The scriptures clearly teach that God is “the Eternal God of all other gods” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32).  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.  

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”.

If “all Gods… before you” became “kings and priests to God”, and if God is the “Eternal God of all other gods”, then there is simply no such thing as “Gods before Earth’s Heavenly Father” as you claim.

Joseph Smith and other LDS leaders have taught about Gods before Heavenly Father of our Earth.  

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

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

Joseph Fielding Smith
Doctrines of Salvation, 3-volume set
https://archive.org/download/JFSDoctrinesOfSalvation/JFSDoctrinesofSalvationv1-3.pdf

"We were begotten by our Father in heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a 
previous heavenly world by His Father, and again He was begotten by a still more ancient father 
and so on from generation to generation" (page 132).

Orson Pratt, The Seer
https://ia904606.us.archive.org/29/items/seereditedbyorso01unse/seereditedbyorso01unse_bw.pdf

"He came here, was born, had a father and mother like you have. Well, who was his father? Why God 
was His father; and who was God's father? Why God had a father like you and I have. Now, with this 
information children can begin to understand something about their Heavenly Father. They can see 
that if Jesus is His Son, and we are His sons and daughters, that He must be the Son of some other 
personage, for He could not beget Himself, but must have a father even as He is our Father". 

Gospel Truths, volume 1, George Q. Cannon, page 128.
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

And so did the early Christian church split up into various sects (those of “Apollos” or of “Cephas”, Hymenaeus, Alexander, Phygellus and Hermogenes, Philetus, Diotrephes, and the Nicolaitans to name some). But the true church was distinguished from all the others by the fact that it was the only one led by the apostles who were called by Jesus Christ.

I don't know if they all split into various sects. Paul was just saying not to form groups and 
label one person as the specific leader or head.  Christ is the head of the church; it's not the 
Pope and it's not the President of the LDS Church. Both of these are assumed to be the only true 
church on Earth.

I have spent the majority of my Christian life in the Catholic, Pentecostal, and Baptist branches 
of Christ's church.  I would never claim one or the other was the only true church. Our motto was: 
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. 

The Jesus of Islam is not God. The Jesus of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists 
is Michael the Archangel. I have no unity with them.

Paul heard about the divisions that were occurring in the Corinthian church.

"For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; 
and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved 
may be made manifest among you".

These divisions would even occur in the early LDS Church with the appearance of its sects, holding 
some tenets of the larger LDS group and their Catholic and Protestant counterparts.
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

But again, you didn’t answer the question.  

1 Thessalonians 1:5-6 and 1 Corinthians 2:4-5 both explain that Paul’s teaching came not “in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance… with joy of the Holy Ghost”, and also that Paul’s preaching was “not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power.  That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God”.

How does the way Paul taught (as quoted above), using the power of God by revelation through the Holy Ghost, compare to the way the preaching is done in Christian sects of modern times?

I didn't understand your premise. 
 
I believe most of the biblically-based pastors in the Christian sects are inspired by the Holy 
Ghost to reveal teachings of the Bible and to lead their members by revelation when warranted.  
Do we add it to the Bible?  No.  Do we view it as closed canon? In one way yes – since we don't 
add to it.  In another way no – in that we believe God still reveals his will to his people.

Based on my reading of the Doctrine and Covenants, I don't see the signs and wonders and the power 
of the Holy Spirit working in the apostles of the LDS Church.

You speak of revelation in the LDS Church but nothing has been revealed and recorded in canon 
since Doctrine and Covenants 138 back in 1918.  There is Declaration #2 back in 1979 but it masks 
the true intent.

The introduction (which is not part of the Declaration itself) says, "In early June of this year, 
the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball 
extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church".

It should really say "to all worthy members of African-descent of the Church".

This declaration was then presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. Why does the mouthpiece 
for God on Earth need to have a "revelation" to him voted upon?  Did all of Peter or Paul's 
revelations need to be voted on? No.

In the New Testament, the process of receiving and recognizing revelations was somewhat different 
from the formalized procedures you see in the LDS Church. The acceptance of these writings as 
scripture was more of a gradual process, influenced by their widespread use and recognition of 
their spiritual authority.

The address to the General Conference on September 30 said, "President Kimball has asked that I 
advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended 
meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, 
who accepted it and approved it".

But the original declaration from June 8 elaborated more on who was praying:

"Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that 
at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, 
and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have 
pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the 
Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when 
every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng

Again, it is not specific to worthy men who are of African-descent.  It's a subtle masking of the 
history of the LDS Church's ban of certain races on Earth.  Those not of the LDS faith were not 
aware of what the early LDS Church taught about why this ban went into place. See "The Way to 
Perfection" from Joseph Fielding Smith.

To be honest with you, the LDS Church was under severe social pressure to change its policy of 
race.  Out of convenience, a so-called "revelation" was needed to save face. 

The New Testament Church did not ban the priesthood to those of African-descent.
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

Right, Protestant sects today have rejected Paul’s teachings in the Bible where he taught that we are all the offspring of God.  The commentaries they write work hard to try to get around Paul’s actual teaching by making their readers believe that Paul was really saying we are all created by God out of nothing, because that’s what their traditions teach them.

Offspring in the sense of being created by God, not involving Heavenly Mother(s).
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

The point remains; the canon of scripture is open and always open.  God is eternal and so are his words, so we need to always be open and prepared to receive all he desires to give to us.

Great. So non-LDS Christian pastors and laypersons don't need to add to the Bible since the 
faithful are prepared to receive His will for us.  We don't need LDS high priests to come and 
preach a different God.
 

On 9/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, InCognitus said:

Denying the power of God isn’t just “a little bit of apostasy”, it’s a betrayal of all that Jesus taught and the established authority of his church.

Non-LDS Christians do not believe what some spirit supposedly told Joseph Smith back in 1820.