Overthrowing the church of God

[ZealouslyStriving]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Replies in bold:

I was just throwing out names as examples.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I was just throwing out names as examples.

I think my answers satisfy your questions anyway.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I pay much more attention to post graduate work

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Hmmm... What information are they hiding from us? (j/k... kinda.) 

Your post wasn't actually that bad... 👊🏻

I know you are mostly joking but academic publishing is a horrible mess that virtually all academics hate.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Generally speaking, it’s the experience of the professors as well as availability of labs providing hands on experience or other resources of more advanced research that are typically more available to Ivy League schools due to having more money and more research going on that students can participate in.

However, non Ivy League schools often have great programs, sometimes even better than Ivy League.  Utah Valley University, my husband’s former employer, is well known for financial planning, while if Google is accurate only one Ivy League school has a dedicated business school for undergraduates.  Oregon State apparently is highly ranked  in forestry, robotics engineering, oceanography, and online economics and business administration, so someone might prefer to go there, especially if money was an issue.  Google says Yale might be preferred though if the interest was less traditional and more cutting edge research:

If money is no object and grades, etc will open any door, it still doesn’t mean an Ivy League school should automatically be chosen as one’s first option, imo.  

I never personally look at whether someone has a degree from an Ivy League school instead of another university.  I have never cared, even when looking at universities myself.  I wanted Stanford or MIT because they were great in physics. Went to BYU because that’s what I could afford as too shy to try for a scholarship elsewhere…don’t have a clue if I would have gotten one since all I had was good grades as too shy for the extracurricular stuff.  But seriously, I look at ranking of programs, etc., not the name of the university when judging quality.

I pay much more attention to post graduate work (even if they weren’t able to finish because life interfered) and where they are being published and by whom.  I do take note if it’s a smaller college, or a community college, or an online one and of the type of degree though, post graduate work rates higher than bachelor’s.  A smaller college may have fewer professors and not as broad of a choice of courses, less money and opportunities for labs/field work, etc…actual hands on research themselves in the field or a related one.  I also take note of if they have published and where and how scholars or even amateurs that appear credible to me reference their work.

A lot of this research that requires a lot of funding uses federal grants. A lot of it was disrupted in the recent federal grant freeze and lots of projects shut down and previous work was wasted. Federal grant funding going forward will likely be seen as much more tentative so expect less research to be done in the coming years.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I know you are mostly joking but academic publishing is a horrible mess that virtually all academics hate.

My husband certainly did.  He loved teaching and research itself wasn’t bad…especially if you got TAs to do the grunt work.  Getting it published though…

Edited July 28, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Federal grant funding going forward will likely be seen as much more tentative so expect less research to be done in the coming years.

The US’s loss will be Canada’s gain…reversing the trend that was happening when we were there.

Edited July 28, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

My husband certainly did.  He loved teaching and research itself wasn’t bad…especially if you got TAs to do the grunt work.  Getting it published though…

And then realistically no one outside of academia can even read it because generally no one except a university pays for subscriptions to academic journals because it is expensive. I wanted to get access to someone’s paper for something I was looking into but couldn’t find a way to get it. Finally I emailed the author and she just sent me a copy and lamented about how no one gets to read what she writes.

[sunstoned]

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And then realistically no one outside of academia can even read it because generally no one except a university pays for subscriptions to academic journals because it is expensive. I wanted to get access to someone’s paper for something I was looking into but couldn’t find a way to get it. Finally I emailed the author and she just sent me a copy and lamented about how no one gets to read what she writes.

Sometimes you can find the paper listed in Google Scholar with several read options. 

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I know you are mostly joking but academic publishing is a horrible mess that virtually all academics hate.

I agree, there are lots of hoops to jump through, and the peer review can be brutal. But in my department, publishing is required for tenure and advancement.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I agree, there are lots of hoops to jump through, and the peer review can be brutal. But in my department, publishing is required for tenure and advancement.

Yeah, it is true of most. I am more concerned about how gated a lot of the information they create is to non-academics more than the rigor before it is published.

[theplains]

On 7/25/2025 at 2:56 PM, Pyreaux said:

@theplains Having skimmed through, I just picked out a subject to get into.

I don't think Peter says, “He preached only to those from Noah’s day.” He says Jesus also preached to “spirits in prison” who had been disobedient in the days of Noah, as a specific example, not restrictively. If Peter had intended to limit it, he might’ve used a more exclusive construction but by mentioning Noah’s generation, Peter underscores the severity of their wickedness, yet even they were not beyond reach. If they were reached, why not others?

“…to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison…” (Isaiah 42:7)
“…he hath sent me to… proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound…” (Isaiah 61:1)

When 1 Peter 3:19 uses the phrase “spirits in prison,” it echoes these same Isaiah passages.

1 Peter 4:6 “For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead…”

Peter directly states the gospel was preached to the dead, not just the wicked, not just those in Noah’s day.

Yes.  I see your point but the context of 1 Peter 3:18-20 is referring to those in the days of 
Noah - the wicked ones.

"By which also he [Christ] went and preached unto the spirits in prison".
 

[InCognitus]

On 7/25/2025 at 11:34 AM, theplains said:

On 7/14/2025 at 10:10 PM, InCognitus said:

That doesn’t work.  Any apostle or prophet can raise someone from the dead the same way Lazarus was raised from the dead.  In fact, several prophets and apostles have raised people from the dead, among them Elijah (1 Kings 17:17-24), Elisha (2 Kings 4:18-37), Peter (Acts 9:36-43, where Peter raises Tabitha (aka Dorcas)), and Paul (Acts 20:7-12, Paul raises Eutychus who falls from the third loft).  

So why would those in Matthew 27:50-53 being raised from the dead in the same way as it was done by other apostles and prophets help us to “know” that Jesus “is able to also raise us from the dead into immortality”?  It simply doesn’t work that way.

Do you honestly think that Matthew is trying to say that Jesus is no different than any other apostle or prophet?

Is that what you believe is really happening in Matthew 27:50-53?  Do you think it was a sign to make sure everyone knows that Jesus is just like the other apostles and prophets?  Or is it far more likely that they were resurrected to immortality and eternal life the same way Jesus was resurrected?  I believe Jesus is more than just a prophet, and I believe Jesus raised the people in Matthew 27:50-53 from the dead into immortality the same way Jesus was resurrected from the dead in order to witness and demonstrate to us the power of his resurrection into immortality.

Why are you trying to avoid the idea of a resurrection into immortality in Matthew 27:50-53?  Do you deny the physical resurrection from the dead like the Jehovah’s Witnesses?  Or what?

Jesus raising dead persons (Lazarus and others) to life to die again, as opposed to raising others 
to eternal life, does not diminish who he is and it doesn't put him on par with other disciples 
or prophets.

It certainly does diminish who Jesus is with respect to what is reported in Matthew 27:50-53.  Why would Matthew specifically point out that people were raised from the dead after the resurrection of Jesus unless it was to show the power that Jesus has to raise people to immortality?  To simply say he can do what other apostles and prophets have done is meaningless at that point.  The focus of his resurrection is resurrection into immortality, and raising people up just so they can go into a city and show themselves around and then die again just makes no sense.

And again, you are avoiding the implications of this passage from Matthew for some reason.  Do you deny the physicality of the resurrection from the dead like the Jehovah’s Witnesses?  Or why are you so obviously opposed to others receiving the resurrection to eternal life right after Jesus was resurrected?  You must have some theological bias or some other agenda, because the implications of the text seem pretty obvious.

On 7/25/2025 at 11:34 AM, theplains said:

The Doctrine and Covenants doesn't specifically mention any LDS apostle or prophet raising a dead 
person to life.

Duh.  Neither does the book of Leviticus mention any prophet raising the dead.  Funny how that works.

The Doctrine and Covenants is a is a collection of divine revelations and inspired declarations, and it isn’t a historical narrative like the Gospels or the book of Acts.  (Remember there are different genres in scripture).  But the Doctrine and Covenants does indicate that raising the dead is one of the powers that God may do through his servants (D&C 124:100).

And in actual church history there are instances where the dead have been raised, such as this example from the life of Lorenzo Snow, and as described in this talk from Dallin H. Oaks.

On 7/25/2025 at 11:34 AM, theplains said:

On 7/14/2025 at 10:10 PM, InCognitus said:

See the end of my post on 05/20/2025, where I addressed this.

Thank you.  I saw it.  I'll copy and paste some of what you wrote.
 

Doctrine and Covenants 88:96–102 explains that both the celestial and terrestrial individuals are resurrected as part of the first resurrection prior 
to the millennial reign of Christ.

    • Celestial, verses 96-98:  "And the saints that are upon the earth, who are alive, shall be quickened and be caught up to meet him.  And they who 
    have slept in their graves shall come forth, for their graves shall be opened; and they also shall be caught up to meet him in the midst of the pillar 
    of heaven— They are Christ's, the first fruits, they who shall descend with him first, and they who are on the earth and in their graves, who are first 
    caught up to meet him; and all this by the voice of the sounding of the trump of the angel of God."
    
    • Terrestrial, verse 99: "And after this another angel shall sound, which is the second trump; and then cometh the redemption of those who are Christ's 
    at his coming; who have received their part in that prison which is prepared for them, that they might receive the gospel, and be judged according to 
    men in the flesh."

Verse 99 does not depict dead terrestrials coming out of their graves or living terrestrials 
being changed in the twinkling of an eye (1 Corinthians 15:50-58). This is referring to faithful 
saints who had died, will die, or will be living at the time of the Second Coming.

Ah, but it does depict the dead of the terrestrial realm as having “redemption”, and redemption is defined earlier in the context of this same section, where it says “the spirit and the body are the soul of man. And the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul” (vs. 15-16).  And verses 96-101 show the complete context of how the “dead” will “live again”.  

On 7/25/2025 at 11:34 AM, theplains said:

We see it again in 1 Thessalonians 4.

"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, 
and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and 
remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so 
shall we ever be with the Lord. 

But 1 Thessalonians 4 doesn’t mention anyone being changed in the twinkling of an eye like 1 Corinthians 15:50-58 does.  If you are going to criticize God’s word and revelations (both ancient and modern), you better be doing it consistently or otherwise someone might think you are using a double standard.

On 7/25/2025 at 11:34 AM, theplains said:

The terrestrials and telestials are not included in the groups depicted in the Corinthian and 
Thessalonian passages.

Right.  In the Corinthian and Thessalonian passages, Paul must have forgotten to talk about the dead who do not live again until after the millennial reign of Christ (those of the telestial kingdom) like John mentions in Revelation 20:5.  Or maybe Paul simply didn’t know about that, but Joseph Smith did?  Remember, if you are going to be critical of God’s word, you better be doing it consistently or otherwise someone might think you are using a double standard.

But (as mentioned previously) the apostle Paul does actually teach that there are possibly as many resurrections as there are the number of humans who have ever lived on the earth, saying that it occurs, “every man in his own order”.   As Thayer’s Lexicon put it, “Paul specifies several distinct bands or classes of those raised from the dead” in that passage.  For some reason John didn’t mention that in Revelation, but Paul did.

On 7/25/2025 at 11:34 AM, theplains said:

We don't have four classes (first, second, third, and fourth fruits) of those who are "dead in 
Christ" or who "are Christ's" (which are three divisions of the Celestial Kingdom plus the 
Terrestrial Kingdom in LDS theology).

Yet, there are “first fruits” and others mentioned in scripture.

In the parable of the sower, Jesus said of those that “that heareth the word, and understandeth it”, there are those “which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty” (Matthew 13:23).  The early Christians understood these to be referring to the different abodes in the afterlife.

And don’t forget that Paul did teach that there “is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.  So also is the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:41–42).  It seems to me like he got it exactly right.

And remember that Paul says it is “every man in his own order” for several distinct bands or classes of those who are raised from the dead. 

On 7/25/2025 at 11:34 AM, theplains said:

Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it. These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by 
the craftiness of men. These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness. These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of 
the fulness of the Father."

And that's exactly how Jesus visited those in the terrestrial realm, and those people are not excluded from Jesus teaching them in any of the verses in 
section 138 (section 76 says "they receive the presence of the Son"), and this is also why Peter taught that Jesus went to preach the gospel to "the spirits 
in prison".  All these revelations go together.

I don't see the unsaved (those who perished) in 1 Peter 3:18-19 as honorable.

I don’t see the word “honorable” standing by itself in Doctrine and Covenants 76:73-77, do you?  Don’t take words out of context.  It says:

“And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh; Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it. These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men. These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness. These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.”

Those that perished in the flood included the “honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men”.  They were blinded by the craftiness of the men that were responsible for the violence and corruption, which is what caused God to have them all perish in the flood.

On 7/25/2025 at 11:34 AM, theplains said:

On 7/14/2025 at 10:10 PM, InCognitus said:

All who accept Christ are “Christ’s” (even the less valiant), but only as many as are led by the Spirit of God are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. 

Romans 8:14-17 speaks of only one group of people who are led by the Spirit of God and are 
children of God. If children, then heirs. LDS theology refers to this group as exalted beings.

Yep.  And your point is what exactly?

The question is, what about those who “accept” Christ and profess to be Christian but decide to follow him on their own terms, using tradition and their own reasoning and interpretation of scripture instead of being led by the Spirit of God?   What happens to them?

On 7/25/2025 at 11:34 AM, theplains said:

On 7/14/2025 at 10:10 PM, InCognitus said:

But obviously not as terrible as the violence and corruption at the time of Noah which prompted God to reboot the entire earth. 

Right. These are the wicked (corrupt and violent) people mentioned in 1 Peter 3:18-19. They are not honorable.

The corrupt and violent people aren’t mentioned in 1 Peter 3:18-19, only the “disobedient”. 

On 7/25/2025 at 11:34 AM, theplains said:

On 7/14/2025 at 10:10 PM, InCognitus said:

Besides, the fall was part of God's entire plan (apparently), since Jesus was "foreordained before the foundation of the world" to be the lamb without blemish and without spot, so we could be saved by his blood (1 Peter 1:19-20).

The Fall made the Atonement necessary, but the fact that the Atonement was foreordained doesn't 
mean Adam and Eve were doing the will of God in order not to frustrate His plan. The Atonement 
did not make the Fall necessary.

God’s plan for the atonement (by foreordaining Jesus to be the Lamb slain from before the foundations of the world) shows that God included the fall in his plan.  The fact that God knew that Adam and Eve would fall doesn’t mean they were “doing the will of God” by falling.  Foreknowledge of something does not mean God wills it to happen, but God had "decreed that he should eat and fall" in the sense that he foreknew it and used it for his greater plan, which was to provide an environment where mankind could choose between good or evil and have the opportunity for repentance from their bad choices and redemption through the atonement of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Savior of the world.  And God facilitated the plan by putting the tree of knowledge of good and evil right in the middle of the garden, right where Adam could see it and look at it every day.  God, with his foreknowledge of Adam's choices, set it up for the fall.

But of course that doesn't mean God sets us up for all of our bad choices.  You could pick any number of evil behavior events in history and suggest that God willed those things to happen simply because he knew it would happen and used it in his plan for something greater.  Take Joseph being sold into Egypt as an example.  God used the evil behavior of Joseph’s brethren to get Joseph into Egypt, which later on proved to save many people from the famine.  God has a bigger plan than what we can see at any given point in time.  And in the case of Adam and Eve, he obviously had a plan for this earth that included the fall and atonement.

On 7/25/2025 at 11:34 AM, theplains said:

Those passages refer to sin bringing about death in the episode of the Fall. There is no 
subsequent or second sin that led to Adam and Eve's spiritual death and separation from God or 
that second sin causing the effects of the Fall to rest upon all mankind.

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death 
spread to all men because all sinned" (Romans 5:12).

Alma 42:1 refers to the punishment of the sinner. Verses 2-10 uses Adam and Eve as the prime 
example in their punishment (expulsion) from the Garden of Eden.

"And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized 
in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden 
of Eden.   Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for 
original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, 
for they are whole from the foundation of the world. And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch 
as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their 
hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good" (Moses 6:53-55).

Original guilt is tied to the sins of the parents. The context is Adam and Eve in the Garden of 
Eden.  The Atonement provided redemption from the effects of the Fall.

All men sin because we have inherited a fallen nature. Just look at a child. You don't have to 
teach them how to lie or steal.  It's in their nature.

You didn’t support your claim.  In your original statement you said:

On 7/14/2025 at 10:59 AM, theplains said:

Alma 42:1-12 and Moses 6:53-55 refer to what our first parents did as sin. Romans 5:12-19 teaches 
likewise for Adam.

You specifically said that those scriptural references (Alma 42:1-12, Moses 6:53-55, and Romans 5:12-29) “refer to what our first parents did as a sin”.

In your attempt to support your claim above, you quoted this portion of Romans 5:12-19, “sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin”, yet you neglected to include the context of the very next verse where Paul refers to this as “Adam’s transgression”.  He never refers to this as his “sin”.  And sin obviously did come into the world through the fall, because fallen man is naturally subject to sin.

And the same holds true of your treatment of Moses 6:53-55, where the same terminology is used: “Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden”.

Likewise, Alma 42:1-12 never says what you claimed.

That’s all I was trying to say there.  Never do those verses “refer to what our first parents did as a sin”.  I take "sin" and "transgression" to synonymous in some contexts.

On 7/25/2025 at 11:34 AM, theplains said:

The sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden is also taught in several places throughout LDS history.  
I'll mention a few:

1]

"Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Eternal Father. He is our Creator.  He is our 
Teacher. He is our Savior. His atonement paid for the sin of Adam and won victory over death, 
assuring resurrection and immortality for all men".

2018, New Testament Student Manual - Religion 211–212

2]

"God was willing that his Beloved Son should take upon himself the responsibility of that mission, 
namely, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve which brought about the fall, and, also, that mankind 
might receive forgiveness for their individual sins, provided they would keep the commandments 
upon which salvation and exaltation were based".

November 1974 Ensign, A Testimony of Christ

3]

"Some gifts coming from the Atonement are universal, infinite, and unconditional. These include 
His ransom for Adam's original transgression so that no member of the human family is held 
responsible for that sin".

"For example, while all members of the human family are freely given a reprieve from Adam's sin 
through no effort of their own, they are not given a reprieve from their own sins unless they 
pledge faith in Christ, repent of those sins, are baptized in His name, receive the gift of the 
Holy Ghost and confirmation into Christ's Church, and press forward in faithful endurance the 
remainder of life's journey".

March 2008 Ensign, The Atonement of Jesus Christ

4] 

"Therefore, man, who had no hand in bringing death upon himself, shall have no hand in bringing 
again life unto himself; for as he dies in consequence of the sin of Adam, so shall he live again, 
whether he will or not, by the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and the power of his resurrection".

Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph F. Smith  

I never said that nobody ever refers to what Adam did as a “sin”, rather that the verses that you referenced (Alma 42:1-12, Moses 6:53-55, and Romans 5:12-29) do not refer to what Adam did as a “sin”.

On 7/25/2025 at 11:34 AM, theplains said:

I see both wicked telestials and terrestrials (referred to as honorable in Doctrine and Covenants) 
in 1 Peter 3:19-20. 

That's why I asked.

I’m glad you seem to believe in the LDS doctrine of the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms.  Do you believe Jesus went and preached the gospel to the spirits of the dead?

And, I’ve already discussed why the “disobedient” are not the same as those who were “corrupt” and filled with “violence” as described in Genesis 6:11-13.  The corrupt and violent people aren’t mentioned in 1 Peter 3:18-19, only the “disobedient”. 

Edited August 4, 2025 by InCognitus

[theplains]

On 8/3/2025 at 5:07 PM, InCognitus said:

It certainly does diminish who Jesus is with respect to what is reported in Matthew 27:50-53.  Why would Matthew specifically point out that people were raised from the dead after the resurrection of Jesus unless it was to show the power that Jesus has to raise people to immortality?

It doesn't diminish who Christ is.  Matthew pointed it out for the same reason people were raised 
from the dead to mortality before the resurrection of Jesus.

Before Jesus went to the cross, he said "I am the resurrection and the life".

You seem to believe there's a difference in one being raised from the dead versus one being 
resurrected from the dead. I don't make a distinction except that in some cases, Jesus raised 
(resurrected) some back to life only to die again later.
 

On 8/3/2025 at 5:07 PM, InCognitus said:

To simply say he can do what other apostles and prophets have done is meaningless at that point.  The focus of his resurrection is resurrection into immortality, and raising people up just so they can go into a city and show themselves around and then die again just makes no sense.

That is your focus so it doesn't make sense to you.
 

On 8/3/2025 at 5:07 PM, InCognitus said:

And again, you are avoiding the implications of this passage from Matthew for some reason.  Do you deny the physicality of the resurrection from the dead like the Jehovah’s Witnesses?  Or why are you so obviously opposed to others receiving the resurrection to eternal life right after Jesus was resurrected?  You must have some theological bias or some other agenda, because the implications of the text seem pretty obvious.

Jesus was raised physically from the dead, in a glorified body.  Jehovah's Witnesses refer to it 
as a resurrection but in their theology, it's actually a newly created body.  The old body was 
destroyed.  Every time Jesus appeared to his disciples, he had to appear in a newly materialized 
body.  But I don't know if their view of Christ's spiritual body has substance. If I paraphrase 
them correctly "Jesus went into the grave, but Michael came out".

Scripture doesn't say that the people who came out of the grave after Christ's resurrection were 
immortal or if the people were Gods (i.e. possessing eternal life).
 

On 8/3/2025 at 5:07 PM, InCognitus said:

But the Doctrine and Covenants does indicate that raising the dead is one of the powers that God may do through his servants (D&C 124:100).

And in actual church history there are instances where the dead have been raised, such as this example from the life of Lorenzo Snow, and as described in this talk from Dallin H. Oaks.

Thanks for the links.
 

On 8/3/2025 at 5:07 PM, InCognitus said:

Ah, but it does depict the dead of the terrestrial realm as having “redemption”, and redemption is defined earlier in the context of this same section, where it says “the spirit and the body are the soul of man. And the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul” (vs. 15-16).  And verses 96-101 show the complete context of how the “dead” will “live again”.

In Alma's case, redemption brings eternal life.

"And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions 
of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation 
cometh to none else. Therefore the wicked remain as though there had been no redemption made, except 
it be the loosing of the bands of death; for behold, the day cometh that all shall rise from the 
dead and stand before God, and be judged according to their works" (11:40-41).

There are some for whom redemption will not be made.

"And Amulek hath spoken plainly concerning death, and being raised from this mortality to a state 
of immortality, and being brought before the bar of God, to be judged according to our works ... 
And now behold, I say unto you then cometh a death, even a second death, which is a spiritual 
death; then is a time that whosoever dieth in his sins, as to a temporal death, shall also die a 
spiritual death; yea, he shall die as to things pertaining unto righteousness. Then is the time 
when their torments shall be as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever 
and ever; and then is the time that they shall be chained down to an everlasting destruction, 
according to the power and captivity of Satan, he having subjected them according to his will. 
Then, I say unto you, they shall be as though there had been no redemption made; for they cannot 
be redeemed according to God's justice; and they cannot die, seeing there is no more corruption" 
(12:12, 16-18).
 

On 8/3/2025 at 5:07 PM, InCognitus said:

Right.  In the Corinthian and Thessalonian passages, Paul must have forgotten to talk about the dead who do not live again until after the millennial reign of Christ (those of the telestial kingdom) like John mentions in Revelation 20:5.  Or maybe Paul simply didn’t know about that, but Joseph Smith did?  Remember, if you are going to be critical of God’s word, you better be doing it consistently or otherwise someone might think you are using a double standard.

You seem to also remove the terrestrials and those in the two lower divisions of the Celestial 
Kingdom from being priests and kings even though they are in the First Resurrection (Revelation 20:6).
 

On 8/3/2025 at 5:07 PM, InCognitus said:

Yet, there are “first fruits” and others mentioned in scripture.

In the parable of the sower, Jesus said of those that “that heareth the word, and understandeth it”, there are those “which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty” (Matthew 13:23).  The early Christians understood these to be referring to the different abodes in the afterlife.

And don’t forget that Paul did teach that there “is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.  So also is the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:41–42).  It seems to me like he got it exactly right.

And remember that Paul says it is “every man in his own order” for several distinct bands or classes of those who are raised from the dead.

This fruit bearing occurs in mortality.

Your "different abodes" is actually one abode.

"Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are 
many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if 
I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, 
there ye may be also".

Jesus is where the Father is. These are where the mansions are.

I wanted to clarify something from my last reply.

I said, "We don't have four classes (first, second, third, and fourth fruits) of those who are 
"dead in Christ" or who "are Christ's" (which are three divisions of the Celestial Kingdom plus 
the Terrestrial Kingdom in LDS theology)".

Those who "are Christ's" is a reference to exalted beings (gods) in Doctrine and Covenants 76:54-59 
and 88:98.  This particular classification does not represent all people in all the various kingdoms 
in LDS theology.

There are stars even larger and brighter than our star (Sun, celestial), but yet they are likened 
to a telestial glory (76:81,98) while the moon is of a terrestrial glory (76:71).

It seems Joseph's revelation has as its yardstick only the two brightest lights in our sky.
 

On 8/3/2025 at 5:07 PM, InCognitus said:

I don’t see the word “honorable” standing by itself in Doctrine and Covenants 76:73-77, do you?  Don’t take words out of context.  It says:

“And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh; Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it. These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men. These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness. These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.”

Those that perished in the flood included the “honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men”.  They were blinded by the craftiness of the men that were responsible for the violence and corruption, which is what caused God to have them all perish in the flood.

1 Peter 3:19-20 says, "By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;  Which 
sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while 
the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water".

I see both groups that perished in the flood ("the blinded honorable men" and "the crafty men") 
as being disobedient.  That is why they are not saved.

Considering Genesis 6:11-13, I see both groups that perished in the flood ("the blinded honorable 
men" and "the crafty men") as being corrupt and violent.
 

On 8/3/2025 at 5:07 PM, InCognitus said:

Yep.  And your point is what exactly?

The question is, what about those who “accept” Christ and profess to be Christian but decide to follow him on their own terms, using tradition and their own reasoning and interpretation of scripture instead of being led by the Spirit of God?   What happens to them?

Romans 8:14-17 has a specific condition - "if children, then heirs".  It doesn't say some children 
are heirs and others are not.

The same is taught in Galatians 4.

"Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he 
be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so 
we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness 
of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them 
that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God 
hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art 
no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ".

The point is that heirs are taught to be exalted beings from LDS sources. The covenant children 
of God are these heirs. 

New Testament Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-study-guide-for-home-study-seminary-students/introduction-to-romans/unit-21-day-1-romans-8-11?lang=eng

Teachings of Joseph Smith, chapter 3 and chapter 18
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-3?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-18?lang=eng

New Testament Student Manual, Romans 4-8
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-student-manual/romans/chapter-36-romans-4-8?lang=eng

New Testament Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students, Romans 8-11
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-study-guide-for-home-study-seminary-students/introduction-to-romans/unit-21-day-1-romans-8-11?lang=eng
 

On 8/3/2025 at 5:07 PM, InCognitus said:

The corrupt and violent people aren’t mentioned in 1 Peter 3:18-19, only the “disobedient”.

1 Peter 3:18-19 doesn't specifically use the words "corrupt" and "violent" to describe the people 
in Noah's day that perished in the flood, but we see this from Genesis 6:11-13.

But do you believe corrupt and violent people are disobedient?
 

On 8/3/2025 at 5:07 PM, InCognitus said:

And God facilitated the plan by putting the tree of knowledge of good and evil right in the middle of the garden, right where Adam could see it and look at it every day.  God, with his foreknowledge of Adam's choices, set it up for the fall.

Was their choice to disobey God a good choice when all was said and done? Moses 5:10-11 depicts 
it as being the right thing for them to do.
 

On 8/3/2025 at 5:07 PM, InCognitus said:

Likewise, Alma 42:1-12 never says what you claimed.

That’s all I was trying to say there.  Never do those verses “refer to what our first parents did as a sin”.  I take "sin" and "transgression" to synonymous in some contexts.

What do you believe is the punishment of the sinner in Alma 42:1-12 and why is Adam and Eve (the 
first parents) used as the focus of the lesson?

As for Moses 6:54 ("Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned 
for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the 
children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world") – original guilt is original (or 
first) sin. "The sins of the parents" is a reference to Adam and Eve.  The "children" is a reference 
to Abel and Cain initially. That is identified in verse 54. The initial scene is identified by 
verse 53 – the Garden of Eden.

As for Romans 5:12 ("Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and 
so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"), how do you believe sin entered the world 
by one man? What sin caused death?
 

On 8/3/2025 at 5:07 PM, InCognitus said:

I’m glad you seem to believe in the LDS doctrine of the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms.  Do you believe Jesus went and preached the gospel to the spirits of the dead?

Yes. 1 Peter 3:18-19.  These people are identified as those who perished in the flood.
 

On 8/3/2025 at 5:07 PM, InCognitus said:

And, I’ve already discussed why the “disobedient” are not the same as those who were “corrupt” and filled with “violence” as described in Genesis 6:11-13.  The corrupt and violent people aren’t mentioned in 1 Peter 3:18-19, only the “disobedient”. 

Corrupt and violent people are disobedient too.

As you inferred before, I don't get the impression that those who perished in Noah's day were 
really honorable people who were then blinded (corrupted) by others and yet they remained honorable 
and "all flesh had NOT corrupted his way upon the earth" (tweaking Moses 6:12) and "for the earth 
WAS filled with violence through SOME OF them" (tweaking Moses 6:13).

[InCognitus]

On 8/11/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 8/3/2025 at 3:07 PM, InCognitus said:

It certainly does diminish who Jesus is with respect to what is reported in Matthew 27:50-53.  Why would Matthew specifically point out that people were raised from the dead after the resurrection of Jesus unless it was to show the power that Jesus has to raise people to immortality?

It doesn't diminish who Christ is.  Matthew pointed it out for the same reason people were raised 
from the dead to mortality before the resurrection of Jesus.

Before Jesus went to the cross, he said "I am the resurrection and the life".

You seem to believe there's a difference in one being raised from the dead versus one being 
resurrected from the dead. I don't make a distinction except that in some cases, Jesus raised 
(resurrected) some back to life only to die again later.

There is a difference between how Jesus was raised from the dead and how other prophets and apostles have raised people from the dead, and Matthew 27:52-53 makes a direct reference to the way Jesus was raised from the dead in this context:  “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection” (Matthew 27:52–53).  Now was that “after his resurrection” in the sense that Jesus rose up into mortality and died again?  Or was it “after his resurrection” in the sense that Jesus rose up from the dead and became immortal, never to die again?  And why wouldn’t we understand that those who were raised up “after his resurrection” were raised unto immortality in the same way?

On 8/11/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 8/3/2025 at 3:07 PM, InCognitus said:

To simply say he can do what other apostles and prophets have done is meaningless at that point.  The focus of his resurrection is resurrection into immortality, and raising people up just so they can go into a city and show themselves around and then die again just makes no sense.

That is your focus so it doesn't make sense to you.

That’s not just my focus, that is the central focus of the entire gospel of Jesus Christ in true Christianity: “If Christ be not risen [into immortality], then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14).  Paul continues, “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (verse 53).  

“Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him” (Romans 6:9).  So why would Matthew point out that others were raised from the dead “after his resurrection” but they died again?  That doesn’t prove anything, and it diminishes the power of Christ and the significance of the event, making him no different than other prophets and apostles who have raised the dead.

On 8/11/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 8/3/2025 at 3:07 PM, InCognitus said:

And again, you are avoiding the implications of this passage from Matthew for some reason.  Do you deny the physicality of the resurrection from the dead like the Jehovah’s Witnesses?  Or why are you so obviously opposed to others receiving the resurrection to eternal life right after Jesus was resurrected?  You must have some theological bias or some other agenda, because the implications of the text seem pretty obvious.

Jesus was raised physically from the dead, in a glorified body.  Jehovah's Witnesses refer to it 
as a resurrection but in their theology, it's actually a newly created body.  The old body was 
destroyed.  Every time Jesus appeared to his disciples, he had to appear in a newly materialized 
body.  But I don't know if their view of Christ's spiritual body has substance. If I paraphrase 
them correctly "Jesus went into the grave, but Michael came out".

Scripture doesn't say that the people who came out of the grave after Christ's resurrection were 
immortal or if the people were Gods (i.e. possessing eternal life).

Why are you so obviously opposed to others receiving the resurrection to eternal life right after Jesus was resurrected?  What is your theological reason for opposing it?

On 8/11/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 8/3/2025 at 3:07 PM, InCognitus said:

Ah, but it does depict the dead of the terrestrial realm as having “redemption”, and redemption is defined earlier in the context of this same section, where it says “the spirit and the body are the soul of man. And the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul” (vs. 15-16).  And verses 96-101 show the complete context of how the “dead” will “live again”.

In Alma's case, redemption brings eternal life.

You are taking things out of context again. The redemption of “the soul” is one topic and context, the redemption unto eternal life is another topic and context.  By your reasoning (and ignoring all context), I think you would believe that if I take a coupon to a grocery store and redeem the coupon then I will have eternal life.

On 8/11/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 8/3/2025 at 3:07 PM, InCognitus said:

Yet, there are “first fruits” and others mentioned in scripture.

In the parable of the sower, Jesus said of those that “that heareth the word, and understandeth it”, there are those “which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty” (Matthew 13:23).  The early Christians understood these to be referring to the different abodes in the afterlife.

And don’t forget that Paul did teach that there “is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.  So also is the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:41–42).  It seems to me like he got it exactly right.

And remember that Paul says it is “every man in his own order” for several distinct bands or classes of those who are raised from the dead.

This fruit bearing occurs in mortality.

Your "different abodes" is actually one abode.

The comment about “different abodes” is not mine.  As I said above, that was how the early Christians were taught to understand the passage.

In a chapter titled, “Degrees of Glory in Heaven” (of all things), Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220 AD) wrote:

"Conformably, therefore, there are various abodes, according to the worth of those who have believed… These chosen abodes, which are three, are indicated by the numbers in the Gospel--the thirty, the sixty, the hundred.  And the perfect inheritance belongs to those who attain to ‘a perfect man,’ according to the image of the Lord. And the likeness is not, as some imagine, that of the human form; for this consideration is impious. Nor is the likeness to the first cause that which consists in virtue. For this utterance is also impious, being that of those who have imagined that virtue in man and in the sovereign God is the same. "Thou hast supposed iniquity,’ He says, "[in imagining] that I will be like to thee."  But "it is enough for the disciple to become as the Master,” saith the Master. To the likeness of God, then, he that is introduced into adoption and the friendship of God, to the just inheritance of the lords and gods is brought; if he be perfected, according to the Gospel, as the Lord Himself taught."   (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, book VI, chap. XIV)

On 8/11/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

"Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are 
many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if 
I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, 
there ye may be also".

Jesus is where the Father is. These are where the mansions are.

But contrary to your statement above, Jesus says there are “many” mansions, not just one (as you say there is “actually one abode”).

On 8/11/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

I wanted to clarify something from my last reply.

I said, "We don't have four classes (first, second, third, and fourth fruits) of those who are 
"dead in Christ" or who "are Christ's" (which are three divisions of the Celestial Kingdom plus 
the Terrestrial Kingdom in LDS theology)".

Those who "are Christ's" is a reference to exalted beings (gods) in Doctrine and Covenants 76:54-59 
and 88:98.  This particular classification does not represent all people in all the various kingdoms 
in LDS theology.

Those who “are Christ’s” are those who receive Christ, and this is said of those in both the celestial and terrestrial kingdoms. Of those in the terrestrial, it says “These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father” (76:77).  And it is only those of the telestial kingdom who “will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up to the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud” (76:102). 

See also my repeated question to you below about those who are “Christ’s”.

On 8/11/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

There are stars even larger and brighter than our star (Sun, celestial), but yet they are likened 
to a telestial glory (76:81,98) while the moon is of a terrestrial glory (76:71).

It seems Joseph's revelation has as its yardstick only the two brightest lights in our sky.

This is an absurd criticism as you well know.  The description of the varying degrees of glory of the sun, moon, and stars have to do with how they appear to us “in the firmament” (76:70, 71, 81).  And Paul’s comparison of the degrees of glory in 1 Corinthians 15:41 should be understood in the same context.

On 8/11/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

1 Peter 3:19-20 says, "By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;  Which 
sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while 
the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water".

I see both groups that perished in the flood ("the blinded honorable men" and "the crafty men") 
as being disobedient.  That is why they are not saved.

Considering Genesis 6:11-13, I see both groups that perished in the flood ("the blinded honorable 
men" and "the crafty men") as being corrupt and violent.

See below.

On 8/11/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 8/3/2025 at 3:07 PM, InCognitus said:

Yep.  And your point is what exactly?

The question is, what about those who “accept” Christ and profess to be Christian but decide to follow him on their own terms, using tradition and their own reasoning and interpretation of scripture instead of being led by the Spirit of God?   What happens to them?

Romans 8:14-17 has a specific condition - "if children, then heirs".  It doesn't say some children 
are heirs and others are not.

You didn’t answer the question.  The question was:  What about those who “accept” Christ and profess to be Christian but decide to follow him on their own terms, using tradition and their own reasoning and interpretation of scripture instead of being led by the Spirit of God?   What happens to them?

As for Romans 8:14-17, yes, there is a specific condition there, but there is also a specific context for that condition, which has to do with being born again through the Spirit, as a follower of the Spirit.  Those who are born again of the Spirit through Christ and follow the Spirit of God are heirs of God.  They become children of God in a new sense of the word, as they are his followers.

But you are trying to prooftext this verse out of context to imply that no other humans are children of God in some other sense. 

What does the Bible really say on this topic?

1.  Paul taught the nonbelieving Athenians that all men are the same kind of being as God, his “offspring” (Acts 17:28-29).  Thus, all men are the children of God in this sense.
2.  The book of Hebrews teaches us that God is the “Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12:9).  That is, he is the Father of all spirits, not just some spirits.
3.  Jesus taught us that we must follow God the 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 our Father already 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.

So the Bible does say some “children” are heirs, and others are not.  You just need to believe Jesus and the rest of the Bible too, not just a few verses out of context.

On 8/11/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

The same is taught in Galatians 4.

"Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he 
be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so 
we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness 
of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them 
that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God 
hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art 
no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ".

These verses totally disprove the point you were trying to make above. 

Here Paul makes it clear that an “heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant”.  He compared this to the “children” who were “in bondage under the elements of the world” until “God sent forth his Son… To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons”.  In other words, the “children” of God who were “in bondage under the elements of the world” are born again and adopted through the redemption of the Son, thus making them worthy of being heirs of God.

They were still “children” of God prior to being adopted in one sense but being born again through Christ they are worthy of being heirs of God unto exaltation.

On 8/11/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

The point is that heirs are taught to be exalted beings from LDS sources. The covenant children 
of God are these heirs. 

Yes, that is true.  Those who follow the Spirit of God are the ones who are heirs of God and receive exaltation.  

On 8/11/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 8/3/2025 at 3:07 PM, InCognitus said:

The corrupt and violent people aren’t mentioned in 1 Peter 3:18-19, only the “disobedient”.

1 Peter 3:18-19 doesn't specifically use the words "corrupt" and "violent" to describe the people 
in Noah's day that perished in the flood, but we see this from Genesis 6:11-13.

Exactly, so you see that Peter is making an important distinction here and is talking about Christ visiting only the disobedient people who were killed in the flood, not those who were “corrupt” and “violent” as described in Genesis 6:11-13.

On 8/11/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

But do you believe corrupt and violent people are disobedient?

The distinction is simple.  Here’s the internet AI Overview of the difference between disobedience and corruption:

Quote

Disobedience and corruption are distinct concepts, though they can sometimes intersect.

Disobedience

• Definition: Disobedience is the refusal to follow rules, laws, or the instructions of someone in authority. It implies a direct action or inaction that goes against an established directive.
• Motivation: Disobedience can be motivated by a range of factors, from personal opposition to a law (as in civil disobedience) to simply neglecting or refusing to follow directions.
• Scope: Disobedience can occur in various contexts, from a child defying parents to citizens engaging in civil disobedience against unjust laws. 

Corruption

• Definition: Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain, whether by an individual or an organization. It involves dishonest or fraudulent conduct for illicit benefit.
• Motivation: The primary motivation behind corruption is personal gain or other illicit benefits. This can include financial benefits, political advantages, or securing unfair privileges.
• Scope: Corruption is a societal phenomenon that spans various sectors, including politics, business, education, and even religious organizations. It can manifest in different forms, like bribery, embezzlement, nepotism, and fraud. 

Key differences

• Focus: Disobedience focuses on the act of defying rules or instructions, while corruption focuses on the abuse of power for personal gain.
• Intent: While disobedience can sometimes be unintentional or motivated by principles (like civil disobedience seeking a change in unjust laws), corruption always involves an intent to benefit personally or illegitimately.
• Impact: Disobedience can have varied consequences depending on the context and the nature of the act. Corruption, however, consistently carries negative impacts, including undermining institutions, hindering economic development, distorting individual rights, and eroding public trust. 

 In summary: Disobedience is a broader concept that entails not following a given instruction or rule. Corruption is a specific form of illicit behavior that involves the misuse of power for personal gain, and often involves acts of disobedience as a means to achieve its ends. 

So there is a difference.

On 8/11/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 8/3/2025 at 3:07 PM, InCognitus said:

And God facilitated the plan by putting the tree of knowledge of good and evil right in the middle of the garden, right where Adam could see it and look at it every day.  God, with his foreknowledge of Adam's choices, set it up for the fall.

Was their choice to disobey God a good choice when all was said and done? Moses 5:10-11 depicts 
it as being the right thing for them to do.

It certainly seems to be what God intended them to do, since God set them up to fall by placing the tree of knowledge of good and evil right in the middle of the garden, and sending Satan (who had rebelled against God) to the very same location to tempt Adam. 

On 8/11/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

What do you believe is the punishment of the sinner in Alma 42:1-12 and why is Adam and Eve (the 
first parents) used as the focus of the lesson?

As for Moses 6:54 ("Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned 
for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the 
children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world") – original guilt is original (or 
first) sin. "The sins of the parents" is a reference to Adam and Eve.  The "children" is a reference 
to Abel and Cain initially. That is identified in verse 54. The initial scene is identified by 
verse 53 – the Garden of Eden.

As for Romans 5:12 ("Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and 
so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"), how do you believe sin entered the world 
by one man? What sin caused death?

The fall caused death, as that was the direct result of Adam partaking of the fruit.  

On 8/11/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

Corrupt and violent people are disobedient too.

See above.

On 8/11/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

As you inferred before, I don't get the impression that those who perished in Noah's day were 
really honorable people who were then blinded (corrupted) by others and yet they remained honorable 
and "all flesh had NOT corrupted his way upon the earth" (tweaking Moses 6:12) and "for the earth 
WAS filled with violence through SOME OF them" (tweaking Moses 6:13).

I think you mean Moses 8:28-30, not Moses 6:12-13 (or I have no idea what you are talking about).  You are confusing the Genesis verses with Moses.

And since Moses 8:28-30 says exactly the same thing as Genesis 6:11-13, I presume your criticism above applies to both the Bible and the book of Moses, since you previously agreed that Noah could not have possibly taught every man, woman, and child upon the earth prior to the flood.

Edited August 18, 2025 by InCognitus

[theplains]

On 8/18/2025 at 12:01 AM, InCognitus said:

There is a difference between how Jesus was raised from the dead and how other prophets and apostles have raised people from the dead, and Matthew 27:52-53 makes a direct reference to the way Jesus was raised from the dead in this context:  “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection” (Matthew 27:52–53).  Now was that “after his resurrection” in the sense that Jesus rose up into mortality and died again?  Or was it “after his resurrection” in the sense that Jesus rose up from the dead and became immortal, never to die again?  And why wouldn’t we understand that those who were raised up “after his resurrection” were raised unto immortality in the same way?

"After his resurrection" does not necessarily mean they were raised immortal like Christ.

I discuss this more below.
 

On 8/18/2025 at 12:01 AM, InCognitus said:

That’s not just my focus, that is the central focus of the entire gospel of Jesus Christ in true Christianity: “If Christ be not risen [into immortality], then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14).  Paul continues, “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (verse 53).  

“Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him” (Romans 6:9).  So why would Matthew point out that others were raised from the dead “after his resurrection” but they died again?  That doesn’t prove anything, and it diminishes the power of Christ and the significance of the event, making him no different than other prophets and apostles who have raised the dead.

Romans 6:9 has no bearing on Jairus' daughter and Lazarus.  1 Corinthians 15:53 is pointing to 
a specific type of resurrection in the future, not to those Christ raised from the dead during
his mortal ministry.  As for those who came out of their graves in Jerusalem, we are not given 
specific details as to whether they were raised immortal.

Lazarus would die later.  This did not diminish who Christ was when he first raised him from the 
dead.  He is still the Resurrection and the Life.

The Book of Mormon, in 3 Nephi 23:9-13, records that many Nephite saints were resurrected when 
Christ was glorified (supposedly at His resurrection), but does not mention them being raised to 
immortality ("after his resurrection" as you interpreted its meaning).
 

On 8/18/2025 at 12:01 AM, InCognitus said:

Why are you so obviously opposed to others receiving the resurrection to eternal life right after Jesus was resurrected?  What is your theological reason for opposing it?

I'm not against it but the scripture gives no specific details for that event regarding the others.

A complete fulfillment of eternal life will be experienced in the resurrection, but we can have 
eternal life even before we physically die.

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, 
but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36, NASB)

Back on August 3, you said, "Yet, there are "first fruits" and others mentioned in scripture.  In the parable of the sower, Jesus said of those that "that 
heareth the word, and understandeth it", there are those "which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty" 
(Matthew 13:23).  The early Christians understood these to be referring to the different abodes in the afterlife".

This is not representative of "first fruits" in the sense of the resurrection.

James 1:18 says, "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind 
of firstfruits of his creatures".

According to this article on Got Questions, we are the firstfruits in several ways; the 
firstfruits of salvation (they were the first to be saved and be part of the New Testament 
church) and the firstfruits of the new creation (Ephesians 4:24).

 

On 8/18/2025 at 12:01 AM, InCognitus said:

But contrary to your statement above, Jesus says there are “many” mansions, not just one (as you say there is “actually one abode”).

By one abode, I mean the Kingdom of God.  Within that abode, Christ has prepared mansions for the 
faithful.

"Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are 
many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if 
I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, 
there ye may be also".

I've bolded the key part of my point.

Jesus is where the Father is. This is where the mansions are.

The answer for #12 (Frequently Asked Questions) says,

"The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ's statement 
that "in my Father's house are many mansions".
 

On 8/18/2025 at 12:01 AM, InCognitus said:

Those who “are Christ’s” are those who receive Christ, and this is said of those in both the celestial and terrestrial kingdoms. Of those in the terrestrial, it says “These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father” (76:77).  And it is only those of the telestial kingdom who “will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up to the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud” (76:102). 

See also my repeated question to you below about those who are “Christ’s”.

A key point is that the terrestrials do not return into Heavenly Father's presence.

Receiving the presence of the Son seems to infer occasional visits.

"Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are 
many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if 
I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I 
am, there ye may be also".

Jesus is really residing in the abode where the Father is. This is where the mansions are.

If you still believe the terrestrials "are Christ's", then have a look at Doctrine and Covenants 
76:58-59 and 88:98.  Those who "are Christ's" is a reference to exalted beings (gods).

"Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—Wherefore, all things are 
theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are 
Christ's, and Christ is God's".

"They are Christ's, the first fruits, they who shall descend with him first, and they who are on 
the earth and in their graves, who are first caught up to meet him; and all this by the voice of 
the sounding of the trump of the angel of God".

A comment about your mention of the telestials not being gathered: this refers to individuals who 
are not gathered into the Church of the Firstborn—meaning they do not attain godhood. This would 
include those in the terrestrial kingdom, as well as those in the two lower degrees of the 
celestial kingdom.  The people in these four lesser kingdoms (the fourth being the telestials) do 
not belong to the Church of the Firstborn as seen in D&C 76.

Also, terrestrials do not fit into Romans 8:14-17.  The condition is "if sons, then heirs".

Guide to the Scriptures (Firstfruits) gives several references:

The first crops gathered in a season. In Old Testament times, they were offered to the Lord (Lev. 
23:9–20). Jesus Christ was the firstfruits unto God in that He was the first to be resurrected (1 
Cor. 15:20, 23; 2 Ne. 2:9). Those who accept the gospel and endure to the end in faithfulness are 
in a symbolic way the firstfruits, for they belong to God.

Those who follow the Lamb wherever he goes are the firstfruits unto God, Rev. 14:4.

They who shall first descend with Christ are the firstfruits, D&C 88:98.

None of these support the idea that those who rose after the resurrection of Christ and went into 
Jerusalem were raised with immortal bodies. 

"Joe Doe" is not the firstfruits unto God in that he may have been the second or third, etc, to 
be resurrected.

"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, 
and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:"

"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet 
the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).

The terrestrials are not forever with the Lord.

The terrestrials had not endured to the end so I don't consider them as these symbolic firstfruits.  
Doctrine and Covenants 14:7 says those who endure to the end have eternal life.  Other passages 
teach this too (2 Nephi 9:24; 2 Nephi 31:16; 3 Nephi 15:9, and Doctrine and Covenants 50:4).

Those who don't endure to the end are not saved, but they are damned.

"Firstfruits" is applied in several different ways in the New Testament.

"And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves 
groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body" (Romans 8:23).

This applies to those waiting to be adopted as sons of God.

"Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the 
firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ" (Romans 16:5).

Firstfruits applies to Epaenetus, the first in Achaia to come to faith in Christ.

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 
15:20).

Firstfruits here applies only to Christ.  This is similar to Christ being the only one referred 
to as the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18).  No other resurrected person is labelled as 
"firstfruits of them that slept".

"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his 
coming" (1 Corinthians 15:23).

Firstfruits only applies to Christ and his resurrection.

"I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, 
and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) (1 Corinthians 16:15).

Members of the household of Stephanas (the living ones) are represented as the firstfruits of 
Achaia. This has nothing to do with being firstfruits from the dead.

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of 
his creatures" (James 1:18).

All living faithful believers are described as firstfruits.  This has nothing to do with them 
being firstfruits after first dying physically.

"These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which 
follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits 
unto God and to the Lamb" (Revelation 14:4).

A special group of 144,000 living men are the firstfruits.  They are not firstfruits from the dead.

"First-fruits" is mentioned several times in the Book of Mormon.

"Wherefore, he is the first-fruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the 
children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved" (2 Nephi 2:9).

This is relating to only Christ and his intercession, not his resurrection with an immortal body.  

The Guide to Scriptures definition for first-fruits earlier said "Jesus Christ was the firstfruits 
unto God in that He was the first to be resurrected (1 Cor. 15:20, 23; 2 Ne. 2:9)".

"Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only 
Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which 
is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained 
a good hope of glory in him before he manifesteth himself in the flesh" (Jacob 4:11).

This would seem to apply to every Christian who is resurrected with an immortal body.

But this is contrary to what the Guide to Scriptures definition for first-fruits said earlier 
("Those who accept the gospel and endure to the end in faithfulness are in a symbolic way the 
firstfruits, for they belong to God")).

Only those who gain eternal life (become gods in LDS theology)  had endured to the end (2 Nephi 
31:16,20; 2 Nephi 33:4; 3 Nephi 15:9).

There is another occurrence (only one I think) in the Doctrine and Covenants 88:98.  But it does 
not portray that those who rose from the dead after the resurrection of Christ and went into 
Jerusalem were raised with immortal bodies.  It depicts a future time when only those "that are 
Christ's" are caught up to meet Him.  As shown before, those that "are Christ's" are the exalted 
ones according to D&C 76:58-59.
 

On 8/18/2025 at 12:01 AM, InCognitus said:

This is an absurd criticism as you well know.  The description of the varying degrees of glory of the sun, moon, and stars have to do with how they appear to us “in the firmament” (76:70, 71, 81).  And Paul’s comparison of the degrees of glory in 1 Corinthians 15:41 should be understood in the same context.

Joseph Smith invented the telestial glory.  There are two glories in 1 Corinthians 15.  A 
comparison is being made of 2 things, not 3.

Key highlights:

Celestial bodies vs. terrestrial bodies.
Sown in corruption vs. raised in incorruption.
Sown in dishonor vs. raised in glory.
Sown in weakness vs. raised in power.
Sown a natural body vs. raised a spiritual body.

Verses to support this:

"There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, 
and the glory of the terrestrial is another". 

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption".

"It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:"
 
"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is 
a spiritual body". 

"For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality". 
 

On 8/18/2025 at 12:01 AM, InCognitus said:

You didn’t answer the question.  The question was:  What about those who “accept” Christ and profess to be Christian but decide to follow him on their own terms, using tradition and their own reasoning and interpretation of scripture instead of being led by the Spirit of God?   What happens to them?

According to Romans 8:14-17, those led by the Spirit of God are adopted as sons.  If, sons, then 
heirs.

Those not led by the Spirit of God are not adopted as sons,  If not heirs, then not sons.

It's a contradiction to say you accept Christ but want to follow Him only the way you want, not 
how He wants.  I see this when I read 2 Nephi 25:23.

"For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in 
Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all 
we can do."

"After all we can do" is the way we want; our human effort plus Christ making up the difference.  

"After all we must do" plus "Christ alone" (so we have no reason to boast) is the way He wants.

If you want to approach God with your works (the modern day equivalent of the Law), you must obey 
it all, and not try to do what you can do.  Does God really give you a command you cannot do?  Be 
perfect?  How?  By Christ perfecting you, not you perfecting yourself.

That is why I don't participate in all the handshakes, passwords, chanting, wearing sacred garments, 
and ceremonies that were adapted from Freemasonry into LDS temple rituals.
 

On 8/18/2025 at 12:01 AM, InCognitus said:

As for Romans 8:14-17, yes, there is a specific condition there, but there is also a specific context for that condition, which has to do with being born again through the Spirit, as a follower of the Spirit.  Those who are born again of the Spirit through Christ and follow the Spirit of God are heirs of God.  They become children of God in a new sense of the word, as they are his followers.

But you are trying to prooftext this verse out of context to imply that no other humans are children of God in some other sense.

Yes. Children of God in a generic sense, of being created by God – not that uncreated, eternal 
intelligences were somehow transferred/begotten into a family with a Heavenly Father and at least 
one Heavenly Mother.
 

On 8/18/2025 at 12:01 AM, InCognitus said:

 What does the Bible really say on this topic?

1.  Paul taught the nonbelieving Athenians that all men are the same kind of being as God, his “offspring” (Acts 17:28-29).  Thus, all men are the children of God in this sense.
2.  The book of Hebrews teaches us that God is the “Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12:9).  That is, he is the Father of all spirits, not just some spirits.
3.  Jesus taught us that we must follow God the 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 our Father already 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.

I added some commentary about Acts 17:29-29 in a June 2025 post entitled "Continued - Ephraim, 
birthright, and the gathering".

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/113064-continued-ephraim-birthright-and-the-gathering/
 

On 8/18/2025 at 12:01 AM, InCognitus said:

So the Bible does say some “children” are heirs, and others are not.  You just need to believe Jesus and the rest of the Bible too, not just a few verses out of context.

If sons, then heirs.  If you are not a covenant son, then you are not an heir.  That is the 
meaning of Romans 8:14-17.  An heir is an exalted being in LDS theology as I mentioned before.
 

On 8/18/2025 at 12:01 AM, InCognitus said:

These verses totally disprove the point you were trying to make above. 

Here Paul makes it clear that an “heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant”.  He compared this to the “children” who were “in bondage under the elements of the world” until “God sent forth his Son… To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons”.  In other words, the “children” of God who were “in bondage under the elements of the world” are born again and adopted through the redemption of the Son, thus making them worthy of being heirs of God.

They were still “children” of God prior to being adopted in one sense but being born again through Christ they are worthy of being heirs of God unto exaltation.

"Children of God" in the sense of being created by God, but not in a spiritual sense of being 
adopted as sons through faith.   We are not children of the bondwoman but of the freewoman.

"Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the 
bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children 
of the bondwoman, but of the free". 
 

On 8/18/2025 at 12:01 AM, InCognitus said:

Yes, that is true.  Those who follow the Spirit of God are the ones who are heirs of God and receive exaltation.

And add another condition from Romans 8:14-17: "if sons, then heirs".

If not an heir, then not a son.
 

On 8/18/2025 at 12:01 AM, InCognitus said:

Exactly, so you see that Peter is making an important distinction here and is talking about Christ visiting only the disobedient people who were killed in the flood, not those who were “corrupt” and “violent” as described in Genesis 6:11-13.

The disobedient people would be in the same camp as the corrupt and violent; they are the unsaved 
in the days of Noah as in 1 Peter 3:18-19.

We find a parallel when the people rebelled at Mount Sinai and worshipped the golden calf when 
Moses had not returned.  They were disobedient.  As time progressed in their history, false prophets 
rose up and led/deceived the people to worship false gods.  The disobedient had become corrupted. 
In some cases, they became violent too, as they sacrificed their children to Molech.  The deceivers 
themselves had also become corrupt and violent.
 

On 8/18/2025 at 12:01 AM, InCognitus said:

The distinction is simple.  Here’s the internet AI Overview of the difference between disobedience and corruption:

So there is a difference.

There is a difference between first-degree murder and second-degree murder but both are murder.
Disobedience led to corruption and violence as we see in the days of Noah.  Only eight were saved.
 

On 8/18/2025 at 12:01 AM, InCognitus said:

It certainly seems to be what God intended them to do, since God set them up to fall by placing the tree of knowledge of good and evil right in the middle of the garden, and sending Satan (who had rebelled against God) to the very same location to tempt Adam. 

So they, including Satan, were acting in the will of God by performing all the required steps for 
progression to begin?
 

On 8/18/2025 at 12:01 AM, InCognitus said:

The fall caused death, as that was the direct result of Adam partaking of the fruit.

Romans 5:12 says, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so 
death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned".

What sin of Adam?

Moses 6:54 says, "Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned 
for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, 
for they are whole from the foundation of the world.

What is the context of "the sins of the parents"?

In the March 2008 Ensign, article titled "The Atonement of Jesus Christ", Elder Jeffrey Holland 
said, "Some gifts coming from the Atonement are universal, infinite, and unconditional. These 
include His ransom for Adam's original transgression so that no member of the human family is held 
responsible for that sin".

What sin?
 

On 8/18/2025 at 12:01 AM, InCognitus said:

I think you mean Moses 8:28-30, not Moses 6:12-13 (or I have no idea what you are talking about).  You are confusing the Genesis verses with Moses.

And since Moses 8:28-30 says exactly the same thing as Genesis 6:11-13, I presume your criticism above applies to both the Bible and the book of Moses, since you previously agreed that Noah could not have possibly taught every man, woman, and child upon the earth prior to the flood.

It seems you believe some on the earth in the days of Noah were not corrupt and violent but were 
honorable and were considered as the unsaved who perished.

[InCognitus]

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

On 8/17/2025 at 10:01 PM, InCognitus said:

There is a difference between how Jesus was raised from the dead and how other prophets and apostles have raised people from the dead, and Matthew 27:52-53 makes a direct reference to the way Jesus was raised from the dead in this context:  “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection” (Matthew 27:52–53).  Now was that “after his resurrection” in the sense that Jesus rose up into mortality and died again?  Or was it “after his resurrection” in the sense that Jesus rose up from the dead and became immortal, never to die again?  And why wouldn’t we understand that those who were raised up “after his resurrection” were raised unto immortality in the same way?

"After his resurrection" does not necessarily mean they were raised immortal like Christ.

I discuss this more below.

I think “after his resurrection” does mean that they were raised to immortality like Christ, because Matthew is pointing out that the resurrection of Christ brought about the redemption over death permanently, and was demonstrating that fact by what happened to others “after his resurrection”.

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

On 8/17/2025 at 10:01 PM, InCognitus said:

That’s not just my focus, that is the central focus of the entire gospel of Jesus Christ in true Christianity: “If Christ be not risen [into immortality], then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14).  Paul continues, “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (verse 53).  

“Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him” (Romans 6:9).  So why would Matthew point out that others were raised from the dead “after his resurrection” but they died again?  That doesn’t prove anything, and it diminishes the power of Christ and the significance of the event, making him no different than other prophets and apostles who have raised the dead.

Romans 6:9 has no bearing on Jairus' daughter and Lazarus.

I couldn’t agree more, and this is all the more reason we shouldn’t take the Matthew account of the saints being raised from the dead “after his resurrection” to be the same as Jairus' daughter and Lazarus being raised from the dead.

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

 1 Corinthians 15:53 is pointing to 
a specific type of resurrection in the future, not to those Christ raised from the dead during
his mortal ministry.

The apostle Paul was writing to people living at Corinth, so of course he was talking about them having a resurrection in the future (they hadn’t died yet).  And obviously it’s not talking about those Christ raised from the dead during his mortal ministry, as what would be the point of that?

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

On 8/17/2025 at 10:01 PM, InCognitus said:

Why are you so obviously opposed to others receiving the resurrection to eternal life right after Jesus was resurrected?  What is your theological reason for opposing it?

I'm not against it but the scripture gives no specific details for that event regarding the others.

Matthew gives us sufficient context to tell us that those saints (which were apparently dead a considerable amount of time) came out of their graves “after his resurrection” and this was in accordance with his resurrection.  

So, if you are not against this idea, are you opposing it here simply because Latter-day Saints believe others were resurrected already, or what else could the reason be?

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

A complete fulfillment of eternal life will be experienced in the resurrection, but we can have 
eternal life even before we physically die.

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, 
but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36, NASB)

Back on August 3, you said, "Yet, there are "first fruits" and others mentioned in scripture.  In the parable of the sower, Jesus said of those that "that 
heareth the word, and understandeth it", there are those "which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty" 
(Matthew 13:23).  The early Christians understood these to be referring to the different abodes in the afterlife".

This is not representative of "first fruits" in the sense of the resurrection.

My comment was about the fact that others are called “first fruits”, not just Christ.  And, that the early Christians understood the afterlife to have different “abodes” (according to those who bear fruit) and Paul taught that there are varying degrees of “glory” in the resurrection, even “every man in his own order” for several distinct bands or classes of those who are raised from the dead. 

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

James 1:18 says, "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind 
of firstfruits of his creatures".

According to this article on Got Questions, we are the firstfruits in several ways; the 
firstfruits of salvation (they were the first to be saved and be part of the New Testament 
church) and the firstfruits of the new creation (Ephesians 4:24).

What you say above proves what I was saying before, that others are referred to as “first fruits” in scripture (not just Christ), which would then allow for others that may be referred to as “first fruits” of the resurrection.  If, as Paul taught, that there are several distinct bands or classes of those who are raised from the dead (i.e. “every man in his own order”), then this obviously allows for others besides Christ who are the “first fruits” of the resurrection.

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

On 8/17/2025 at 10:01 PM, InCognitus said:

Those who “are Christ’s” are those who receive Christ, and this is said of those in both the celestial and terrestrial kingdoms. Of those in the terrestrial, it says “These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father” (76:77).  And it is only those of the telestial kingdom who “will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up to the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud” (76:102). 

See also my repeated question to you below about those who are “Christ’s”.

A key point is that the terrestrials do not return into Heavenly Father's presence.

Exactly right, as they receive only the presence of the Son.

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

If you still believe the terrestrials "are Christ's", then have a look at Doctrine and Covenants 
76:58-59 and 88:98.  Those who "are Christ's" is a reference to exalted beings (gods).

"Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—Wherefore, all things are 
theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are 
Christ's, and Christ is God's".

"They are Christ's, the first fruits, they who shall descend with him first, and they who are on 
the earth and in their graves, who are first caught up to meet him; and all this by the voice of 
the sounding of the trump of the angel of God".

Again, you are taking verses out of context without looking at everything scripture says on the topic.  Just because the people in the celestial kingdom “are Christ’s”, it doesn’t mean those in the terrestrial kingdom are not, for scripture says they are.  Doctrine and Covenants 88:96-99 says that both the celestial and terrestrial individuals “are Christ’s”, even though those of the terrestrial kingdom “received their part in that prison which was prepared for them, that they might receive the gospel, and be judged according to men in the flesh”.

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

Also, terrestrials do not fit into Romans 8:14-17.  The condition is "if sons, then heirs".

This is correct.  Those who do not follow the Spirit of God do not inherit all that God has for them.

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, 
and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:"

"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet 
the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).

The terrestrials are not forever with the Lord.

The terrestrials had not endured to the end so I don't consider them as these symbolic firstfruits.

That’s right, those of the terrestrial kingdom are not among the “first fruits”, but they are those who “are Christ’s” at his coming.  Compare Doctrine and Covenants 88 verse 96-98 (those of the celestial kingdom) to verse 99 (those of the terrestrial kingdom).

I think you may be confusing the “first fruits” of the celestial kingdom with those of the telestial kingdom (which are not the “first fruits”).  There is a clear distinction between them in Doctrine and Covenants 88:96-99.  

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

Doctrine and Covenants 14:7 says those who endure to the end have eternal life.  Other passages 
teach this too (2 Nephi 9:24; 2 Nephi 31:16; 3 Nephi 15:9, and Doctrine and Covenants 50:4).

Those who don't endure to the end are not saved, but they are damned.

"Firstfruits" is applied in several different ways in the New Testament.

"And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves 
groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body" (Romans 8:23).

This applies to those waiting to be adopted as sons of God.

"Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the 
firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ" (Romans 16:5).

Firstfruits applies to Epaenetus, the first in Achaia to come to faith in Christ.

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 
15:20).

Firstfruits here applies only to Christ.  This is similar to Christ being the only one referred 
to as the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18).  No other resurrected person is labelled as 
"firstfruits of them that slept".

"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his 
coming" (1 Corinthians 15:23).

Firstfruits only applies to Christ and his resurrection.

That is your opinion, but as you yourself demonstrated many others are referred to as “firstfruits” (not just Christ).  And you quoted 1 Corinthians 15:23 to try to support your belief, but doesn’t it depend on where the translators put the comma or other punctuation in that verse?

For example, consider the NIV translation:

“But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.”

It says, “each in turn”.  Christ is first, then the firstfruits have a turn, and then when he comes, those who belong to him have a turn.

“But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20).  Jesus was indeed the first among many who are “firstfruits”.

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

There is another occurrence (only one I think) in the Doctrine and Covenants 88:98.  But it does 
not portray that those who rose from the dead after the resurrection of Christ and went into 
Jerusalem were raised with immortal bodies.  It depicts a future time when only those "that are 
Christ's" are caught up to meet Him.  

Doctrine and Covenants 88:98 is depicting the culmination of the resurrection of the first fruits when Christ returns. 

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

As shown before, those that "are Christ's" are the exalted 
ones according to D&C 76:58-59.

As shown above you aren’t looking at all of scripture and are trying to define those that “are Christ’s” using a single verse, when clearly the definition is much broader than that.

What you are doing above is like quoting Genesis 14:13, where it says “Abram the Hebrew” and try to use that to imply that Abram is the one and only Hebrew.

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

On 8/17/2025 at 10:01 PM, InCognitus said:

You didn’t answer the question.  The question was:  What about those who “accept” Christ and profess to be Christian but decide to follow him on their own terms, using tradition and their own reasoning and interpretation of scripture instead of being led by the Spirit of God?   What happens to them?

According to Romans 8:14-17, those led by the Spirit of God are adopted as sons.  If, sons, then 
heirs.

Those not led by the Spirit of God are not adopted as sons,  If not heirs, then not sons.

It's a contradiction to say you accept Christ but want to follow Him only the way you want, not 
how He wants.

But isn’t that what many Christians do today?  They don’t want apostles or prophets.  They don’t want to be led by the spirit of God, they want to follow their traditions and shop around to find the church that teaches what they want to hear, according to how they want to interpret scripture.  Or what’s the difference?

What happens to them?

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

On 8/17/2025 at 10:01 PM, InCognitus said:

As for Romans 8:14-17, yes, there is a specific condition there, but there is also a specific context for that condition, which has to do with being born again through the Spirit, as a follower of the Spirit.  Those who are born again of the Spirit through Christ and follow the Spirit of God are heirs of God.  They become children of God in a new sense of the word, as they are his followers.

But you are trying to prooftext this verse out of context to imply that no other humans are children of God in some other sense.

Yes. Children of God in a generic sense, of being created by God – not that uncreated, eternal 
intelligences were somehow transferred/begotten into a family with a Heavenly Father and at least 
one Heavenly Mother.

See below.  You totally misconstrue Paul’s teachings in Acts 17:28-29.

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

On 8/17/2025 at 10:01 PM, InCognitus said:

 What does the Bible really say on this topic?

1.  Paul taught the nonbelieving Athenians that all men are the same kind of being as God, his “offspring” (Acts 17:28-29).  Thus, all men are the children of God in this sense.
2.  The book of Hebrews teaches us that God is the “Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12:9).  That is, he is the Father of all spirits, not just some spirits.
3.  Jesus taught us that we must follow God the 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 our Father already 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.

I added some commentary about Acts 17:29-29 in a June 2025 post entitled "Continued - Ephraim, 
birthright, and the gathering".

Yes, you posted that commentary from the Christianity.com website:  What Does it Mean to Be the Offspring of God?

But why would you think that commentary addresses this question given that we have already discussed why the line of reasoning put forth in that commentary is totally illogical and contradicts Paul’s argument?  (See specifically my post on 12/14/2024, but many other similar references could be provided).

And why would you think that referring to that commentary to try to dismiss the real meaning of Acts 17-29-29 is a valid response to the biblical teachings I posted above?

I was hoping to post this in my other response to you, but I’ll provide some of the problems with that commentary here.

First off, the article makes no effort to define the Greek word génos, wherein Paul teaches we are the “offspring [génos] of God”.  I posted this previously, but this is important to the context of this discussion:

The Greek word translated as “offspring” in Acts 17:28-29 is génos, which Thayer’s Lexicon defines as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With this definition of the word made clear, there is absolutely no way the Greek word génos can be construed as creation in the sense that God created us all out of nothing.  The family relationship or kind of being designation is inherent in the meaning of the word.

Now back to the Christianity.com article. 

The article makes the following points that I will discuss below:

1. “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.”
2. “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).”
3. “Stone idols cannot speak, move, or express creativity as mankind can. If human beings are the offspring of a stone idol "God," then would not human beings be stone as well? Since human beings are not stone creatures, then it would attest to God being a living, true God as stated in the Bible.”
4. “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.”
5. “Just as Paul tells the Epicureans and Stoics, "we are God's offspring" by quoting Cilician Stoic philosopher Aratus, we are told in the Bible, we are God's children (Romans 8:14).”
6. “At the moment of salvation, we become God's children… We are God's offspring because we are made in His Image (Genesis 1:27).”

In point #1, the article recognizes how the Athenians would understand Paul’s quote from the Greek poet Aratus, affirming the truth that “human beings are God’s offspring”.  The Athenians would have understood it in a way similar to what 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.”

In point #2, the article also affirms that Paul connects the fact that we are the “offspring of God” with the true God of the Bible.  We are all the “offspring” of the true God of the Bible.

In point #3, the article begins to recognize Paul’s real argument, that it is illogical to believe that God is “like gold or silver or stone — an image made by human design and skill" since we are his offspring, and human beings aren’t like gold or silver or stone.

In point #4, the article goes off the rails and begins a line of reasoning that completely contradicts Paul’s logic and the strength of his argument, and brings in outside beliefs and teachings that Paul does not include in his sermon to the Athenians.  The article infers that Paul really didn’t mean that we are the “offspring of God” (his génos, the same kind of being as he is), but instead we are just “created by him”.

As I said in my post on 12/14/2024, “If Paul was only saying that we are merely God’s creations, then Paul’s audience could easily reason that a god of any kind (gold, silver, or stone) could ‘create’ anything it desires, and Paul’s point would be meaningless. But the strength of Paul’s argument is in the fact that we have a relationship to God as his offspring, we are the same kind of being as God, and thus to conceive of a god of any other kind is unreasonable.”

In other words, if in Acts 17:28-29 Paul was merely saying that we are God’s creations, then can’t we also understand that God also created gold or silver or stone?  If we are really not the same kind of being that God is (his génos), then how do we know what kind of being God is, and why couldn’t we make an idol of gold or silver or stone to worship?  God created gold and silver and stone too.

In point #5, the article jumps to a completely different context of what it means to be adopted as God’s children through a covenantal relationship with Jesus Christ and being born again by the Spirit.  And in point #6, the article suggests that we become God’s children only at “the moment of salvation”.  This is true in the sense that those who believe in Christ and follow the Spirit will be adopted as children of God in his covenant of inheritance as joint-heirs with Christ, but this teaching is totally foreign to the context of Acts 17:28-29, since this idea infers that only saved Christians are children of God.

In Acts 17:28-29 Paul is preaching a sermon to a broad audience of unbelievers, the Athenians.  In his sermon Paul doesn’t say “only Christians are the offspring of God”.  Rather, he says, we [him and his audience] are the offspring of God.  Therefore, he can’t possibly be referring to becoming God’s children in the adopted sense of the word, because Paul includes his audience in the teaching that “we are his offspring”.

This reasoning (that only Christians are the offspring of God) further confuses Paul’s greater point.  Think this through carefully: The unbelieving people worshipped idols of gold and silver and stone.  Paul teaches them (supposedly, according to the Christianity.com article) that God created everyone but only Christians are the offspring of God because he adopts only them. And how exactly is this supposed to help the unbelieving Athenians understand why they shouldn’t worship gods of gold and silver and stone, given that God also created gold and silver and stone?  It all becomes a mass of confusion.

The Christianity.com commentary also portrays Paul as pulling off a classic bait and switch scam.  He lures in his Greek audience by quoting their poets and affirming that “we are the offspring [génos] of God”, the very same kind of being as God, but he didn’t really mean génos, he really meant that we are created by him.  How would Paul explain his lying to the new converts that joined the church right after he preached that sermon (see 17:34)?

So, the Christianity.com article’s reasoning collapses upon itself.  The writers of the article are so determined to reassure Christians that the modern popular belief that God is “wholly other” is true that it avoids and bends and twists its way around the real meaning of the Greek word génos.

ETA:  I also want to point out (again) that the title of the Christianity.com article is, "What Does it Mean to Be the Offspring of God?", but glaringly absent from the article is any attempt at providing a meaning for the Greek word translated as "offspring" (génos ), which one would think would be one of the first things the writers should address given the title of the article.  It's not as if the writers shy away from defining Greek words (they make it clear that the "Greek word Paul uses for 'God' [in the verse] comes from theios, 'which means just a general deity that Paul has identified as the worl's creator'", for example).  It seems to me that the authors intentionally omitted defining that Greek word because they were aware of its implications.

Which way do you think was Paul’s intended meaning when he used the phrase “we are the offspring of God” (using a Greek word that means we are the same kind of being as God) when teaching a pagan Greek audience about our true relationship to God?  How did Paul want his pagan Greek audience to understand it?

And how does the idea of being adopted as sons and daughters of God through faith fit with the choice of words that Paul used in that passage, given the meaning of the word génos as it was understood by the Greek speaking people in Paul’s day, and according to how the word génos was used throughout the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament)?

I go with using the plain meaning of the text rather than trying to find some way to get around the plain meaning like the Christianity.com article was doing.

Now let’s get back to the real point.  Like the Christianity.com article, you used Romans 8:14-17 as a prooftext out of context to try to imply that no other humans are the children of God in some other sense.

And what does the Bible really say on this topic?

1. Paul taught the nonbelieving Athenians that all men are the same kind of being as God, his “offspring” (Acts 17:28-29).  Thus, all men are the children of God in this sense.
2. The book of Hebrews teaches us that God is the “Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12:9).  That is, he is the Father of all spirits, not just some spirits.
3. Jesus taught us that we must follow God the 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 our Father already 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.

So, the Bible does say some “children” are heirs (the children of the covenant), and others are not.  You just need to believe Jesus and the rest of the Bible too, not just a few verses out of context.

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

On 8/17/2025 at 10:01 PM, InCognitus said:

So the Bible does say some “children” are heirs, and others are not.  You just need to believe Jesus and the rest of the Bible too, not just a few verses out of context.

If sons, then heirs.  If you are not a covenant son, then you are not an heir.  That is the 
meaning of Romans 8:14-17.  An heir is an exalted being in LDS theology as I mentioned before.

Ah, there’s the key word, “a covenant son”.  Being a “covenant” son is different than being an “offspring of God”, and all mankind are the offspring [génos] of God, the same kind of being as God.

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

On 8/17/2025 at 10:01 PM, InCognitus said:

These verses totally disprove the point you were trying to make above. 

Here Paul makes it clear that an “heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant”.  He compared this to the “children” who were “in bondage under the elements of the world” until “God sent forth his Son… To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons”.  In other words, the “children” of God who were “in bondage under the elements of the world” are born again and adopted through the redemption of the Son, thus making them worthy of being heirs of God.

They were still “children” of God prior to being adopted in one sense but being born again through Christ they are worthy of being heirs of God unto exaltation.

"Children of God" in the sense of being created by God, but not in a spiritual sense of being 
adopted as sons through faith.

Or the more biblically correct, “children of God” in the sense that we are all the very offspring [génos] of God, the same kind of being as God, as Paul taught the unbelievers in scripture (and not that we are merely his creations).

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

On 8/17/2025 at 10:01 PM, InCognitus said:

Exactly, so you see that Peter is making an important distinction here and is talking about Christ visiting only the disobedient people who were killed in the flood, not those who were “corrupt” and “violent” as described in Genesis 6:11-13.

The disobedient people would be in the same camp as the corrupt and violent; they are the unsaved 
in the days of Noah as in 1 Peter 3:18-19.

Right, but the difference is that Peter said that Christ only visited the disobedient that were killed in the flood, not the corrupt and violent.  And I already explained the difference between “disobedience” and “corrupt”.

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

On 8/17/2025 at 10:01 PM, InCognitus said:

It certainly seems to be what God intended them to do, since God set them up to fall by placing the tree of knowledge of good and evil right in the middle of the garden, and sending Satan (who had rebelled against God) to the very same location to tempt Adam. 

So they, including Satan, were acting in the will of God by performing all the required steps for 
progression to begin?

Adam and Eve were doing exactly what God expected them to do under those circumstances, which allowed God to fulfill his plan to provide an environment where humankind could use their agency to choose good over evil and have a way to be redeemed through the atonement of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, when they make bad choices and desire to repent. 

And obviously God knew what Satan would do as well.  Why didn’t God just banish Satan to fire and brimstone from the beginning?  Why was he cast down to earth? 

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

On 8/17/2025 at 10:01 PM, InCognitus said:

The fall caused death, as that was the direct result of Adam partaking of the fruit.

Romans 5:12 says, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so 
death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned".

What sin of Adam?

Moses 6:54 says, "Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned 
for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, 
for they are whole from the foundation of the world.

What is the context of "the sins of the parents"?

In the March 2008 Ensign, article titled "The Atonement of Jesus Christ", Elder Jeffrey Holland 
said, "Some gifts coming from the Atonement are universal, infinite, and unconditional. These 
include His ransom for Adam's original transgression so that no member of the human family is held 
responsible for that sin".

What sin?

I thought I made this clear already.  It was the result of Adam partaking of the fruit.

On 8/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, theplains said:

On 8/17/2025 at 10:01 PM, InCognitus said:

I think you mean Moses 8:28-30, not Moses 6:12-13 (or I have no idea what you are talking about).  You are confusing the Genesis verses with Moses.

And since Moses 8:28-30 says exactly the same thing as Genesis 6:11-13, I presume your criticism above applies to both the Bible and the book of Moses, since you previously agreed that Noah could not have possibly taught every man, woman, and child upon the earth prior to the flood.

It seems you believe some on the earth in the days of Noah were not corrupt and violent but were 
honorable and were considered as the unsaved who perished.

It seems you also believe that some on the earth in the days of Noah were not corrupt and violent, since you also acknowledged that Noah could not have possibly preached to every single man, woman, and child on the earth prior to the flood.  Or do you really believe every man, woman, and child that perished in the flood was “corrupt and violent”?

Edited August 31, 2025 by InCognitus

[theplains]

On 8/30/2025 at 6:19 PM, InCognitus said:

I think “after his resurrection” does mean that they were raised to immortality like Christ, because Matthew is pointing out that the resurrection of Christ brought about the redemption over death permanently, and was demonstrating that fact by what happened to others “after his resurrection”.

We know that Christ rising from the dead meant he would not die again but we don't get a clear 
indication from scripture it was the same case for those who rose from the dead and then went 
into Jerusalem. A similar occurrence is seen from the Book of Mormon.
 

On 8/30/2025 at 6:19 PM, InCognitus said:

Matthew gives us sufficient context to tell us that those saints (which were apparently dead a considerable amount of time) came out of their graves “after his resurrection” and this was in accordance with his resurrection.  

So, if you are not against this idea, are you opposing it here simply because Latter-day Saints believe others were resurrected already, or what else could the reason be?

I explained my rationale above.
 

On 8/30/2025 at 6:19 PM, InCognitus said:

My comment was about the fact that others are called “first fruits”, not just Christ.  And, that the early Christians understood the afterlife to have different “abodes” (according to those who bear fruit) and Paul taught that there are varying degrees of “glory” in the resurrection, even “every man in his own order” for several distinct bands or classes of those who are raised from the dead.

Yes. Paul wrote about the celestial and telestial. Joseph Smith invented the telestial glory.
 

On 8/30/2025 at 6:19 PM, InCognitus said:

What you say above proves what I was saying before, that others are referred to as “first fruits” in scripture (not just Christ), which would then allow for others that may be referred to as “first fruits” of the resurrection.  If, as Paul taught, that there are several distinct bands or classes of those who are raised from the dead (i.e. “every man in his own order”), then this obviously allows for others besides Christ who are the “first fruits” of the resurrection.

But only Christ is mentioned as the firstfruits of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20).

One could speculate that those who were raised to life after Christ's resurrection and 
went into Jerusalem also had immortal bodies but an allusion to their bodies being changed 
to incorruptible ones (like 1 Corinthians 15 says) is not inferred.

How do you define "first fruits of the resurrection" within context of your quote about "every 
man in his own order"?  Do you believe both terrestrials and telestials qualify?
 

On 8/30/2025 at 6:19 PM, InCognitus said:

Exactly right, as they receive only the presence of the Son.

What does it mean that the terrestrials would only receive the presence of the Son and the 
telestials would only receive the presence of the Holy Ghost?
 

On 8/30/2025 at 6:19 PM, InCognitus said:

Again, you are taking verses out of context without looking at everything scripture says on the topic.  Just because the people in the celestial kingdom “are Christ’s”, it doesn’t mean those in the terrestrial kingdom are not, for scripture says they are.  Doctrine and Covenants 88:96-99 says that both the celestial and terrestrial individuals “are Christ’s”, even though those of the terrestrial kingdom “received their part in that prison which was prepared for them, that they might receive the gospel, and be judged according to men in the flesh”.

Those in the first trump are referred to as the first fruits in Doctrine and Covenants 88:98.

The terrestrials are in the second trump, but I see where they are referred to "as Christ's". 
 
But "first fruits" in verse 98 is linked to 1 Corinthians 15:1–58. There it mentions Christ being 
the firstfruits of them that slept. But this doesn't mean they (the terrestrials in verse 99) are 
inheriting the same "first fruits" term from verse 98.  

The context of "first fruits" is described in the following church definition.

See https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/firstfruits?lang=eng

#1 - the first crops gathered in a season. In Old Testament times, they were offered to the Lord 
(Lev. 23:9–20). Jesus Christ was the firstfruits unto God in that He was the first to be resurrected 
(1 Cor. 15:20, 23; 2 Ne. 2:9). 

#2 - those who accept the gospel and endure to the end in faithfulness are in a symbolic way the 
firstfruits, for they belong to God. Those who follow the Lamb wherever he goes are the firstfruits 
unto God, Rev. 14:4.

#3 - they who shall first descend with Christ are the firstfruits, D&C 88:98.
 

#1 – only applies to Christ.

#2 - the terrestrials, telestials, and those in the two lower kingdoms of the celestial kingdom did 
not accept the gospel and endure to the end. This breaks the church's definition of "firstfruits".

#3 - the terrestrials, telestials, and those in the two lower kingdoms of the celestial kingdom do 
not first descend with Christ and the firstfruits. These firstfruits are the gods – those who will 
dwell in the presence of God and Christ forever and ever. See D&C 76:58-65.

"Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—Wherefore, all things are theirs, 
whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ's, 
and Christ is God's. And they shall overcome all things. Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but 
rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet. These shall dwell in the 
presence of God and his Christ forever and ever. These are they whom he shall bring with him, when 
he shall come in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people. These are they who 
shall have part in the first resurrection. These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection 
of the just".

I noticed that Doctrine 88:99 mentions the redemption of only the terrestrials who had prison 
prepared for them, but no redemption of the telestials; those who come forth in the third trump. 
Verse 100 mentions they are to be judged and found under condemnation.

But all in the two lower divisions of the celestial kingdom and the terrestrial kingdom are judged 
and found under condemnation; which is damnation – a lack of eternal increase and never to return 
to live with Heavenly Father.
 

On 8/30/2025 at 6:19 PM, InCognitus said:

This is correct.  Those who do not follow the Spirit of God do not inherit all that God has for them.

The terrestrials, telestials, and those in the two lower divisions of the celestial kingdom did 
not follow the Spirit of God. They did not inherit all that God had for them.  Only the sons (the 
heirs) did.  If sons, then heirs.
 

On 8/30/2025 at 6:19 PM, InCognitus said:

“But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20).  Jesus was indeed the first among many who are “firstfruits”.

But the "many" are not the firstfruits from the dead.  But they are firstfruits in that they are 
Christ's.  I elaborated more about this above.
 

On 8/30/2025 at 6:19 PM, InCognitus said:

But isn’t that what many Christians do today?  They don’t want apostles or prophets.  They don’t want to be led by the spirit of God, they want to follow their traditions and shop around to find the church that teaches what they want to hear, according to how they want to interpret scripture.  Or what’s the difference?

What happens to them?

Various churches have leaders who operate as apostles or prophets without necessary calling 
themselves Apostle John or Prophet Joe.  But I have not seen any exhibit the miraculous signs and 
wonders which existed in the early church. I think this happens more in parts of the world where 
the church is struggling with severe persecution.

I don't shop around for a church that will teach me what I want to hear.  If my church stops 
preaching the word of God, I leave it and find another which does. I don't believe any person 
(so-called prophet or apostle) who would teach God was not God from all eternity to eternity but 
was once a man who became the Heavenly Father of our Earth.
 

On 8/30/2025 at 6:19 PM, InCognitus said:

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

By offspring, I don't mean spirits as offspring of Heavenly Parents.  I just mean creation by God 
alone.  I know you accept the latter position.

It would help if the LDS Church uses Doctrine 132:31 to support its doctrine of Heavenly Mother(s).
 

On 8/30/2025 at 6:19 PM, InCognitus said:

So, the Bible does say some “children” are heirs (the children of the covenant), and others are not.  You just need to believe Jesus and the rest of the Bible too, not just a few verses out of context.

Even unbelievers are viewed as children of God in a created, non-procreated sense.  The other 
children are in an adopted sense – those led by the Spirit of God.  If sons, then heirs (Romans 
8:14-17). 

Being made in the image of God is not about body parts.
 

On 8/30/2025 at 6:19 PM, InCognitus said:

Right, but the difference is that Peter said that Christ only visited the disobedient that were killed in the flood, not the corrupt and violent.  And I already explained the difference between “disobedience” and “corrupt”.

Violent and corrupt people are disobedient.
 

On 8/30/2025 at 6:19 PM, InCognitus said:

And obviously God knew what Satan would do as well.  Why didn’t God just banish Satan to fire and brimstone from the beginning?  Why was he cast down to earth?

I don't know why God didn't just banish Satan directly to the lake of fire at the beginning.

I also don't know why Joseph Smith taught many who don't return to live with Heavenly Father would 
suffer mentally as if they were punished with fire and brimstone.

Teachings of Joseph Smith, chapter 18.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-18?lang=eng

"The torment of the wicked is to know they have come short of the glory they might have enjoyed.

God has decreed that all who will not obey His voice shall not escape the damnation of hell. What 
is the damnation of hell? To go with that society who have not obeyed His commands. … I know that 
all men will be damned if they do not come in the way which He hath opened, and this is the way 
marked out by the word of the Lord.

The great misery of departed spirits in the world of spirits, where they go after death, is to 
know that they come short of the glory that others enjoy and that they might have enjoyed themselves, 
and they are their own accusers.

There is no pain so awful as that of suspense. This is the punishment of the wicked; their doubt, 
anxiety and suspense cause weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.

A man is his own tormentor and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake 
that burns with fire and brimstone [see Revelation 21:8]. The torment of disappointment in the 
mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment 
of man.

Some shall rise to the everlasting burnings of God, for God dwells in everlasting burnings, and 
some shall rise to the damnation of their own filthiness, which is as exquisite a torment as the 
lake of fire and brimstone".
 

On 8/30/2025 at 6:19 PM, InCognitus said:

  It seems you also believe that some on the earth in the days of Noah were not corrupt and violent, since you also acknowledged that Noah could not have possibly preached to every single man, woman, and child on the earth prior to the flood.  Or do you really believe every man, woman, and child that perished in the flood was “corrupt and violent”?

All I can go with is what Genesis 6:5,11-13 says.

"Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence … And God saw 
the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And 
God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with 
violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth. The LORD saw that the 
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart 
was only evil continually".

The corrupt and violent people are disobedient.

The idea that Jesus visited and preached to those who would inherit a terrestrial glory is not 
found in Doctrine and Covenants 138.  Some key qualifying verses are 17 and 51.

"Their sleeping dust was to be restored unto its perfect frame, bone to his bone, and the sinews 
and the flesh upon them, the spirit and the body to be united never again to be divided, that 
they might receive a fulness of joy".

"These the Lord taught, and gave them power to come forth, after his resurrection from the dead, 
to enter into his Father's kingdom, there to be crowned with immortality and eternal life".

The fulness of joy comes with exaltation.

Eternal life is exaltation.

Verse 58 shows the dead who repent will be redeemed through obedience to the ordinances of the 
house of God.

This redemption does not include many in the spirit world for they did not obey all the ordinances 
and thus suffered by living in a place away from Heavenly Father.  As stated in a teaching of 
Joseph Smith, they would suffer exquisitely in their mind.

[InCognitus]

On 9/5/2025 at 7:55 AM, theplains said:

We know that Christ rising from the dead meant he would not die again but we don't get a clear 
indication from scripture it was the same case for those who rose from the dead and then went 
into Jerusalem. A similar occurrence is seen from the Book of Mormon.

I think we do get a clear indication from scripture that they rose from the dead and did not die again, since it was “after his resurrection” and a demonstration of his power in that regard.

You can believe whatever you what, that Jesus raised them up just to died again in the same way as any of the other apostles and prophets have done before.  But I believe this was a sign of the resurrection of Jesus and a demonstration of the power that Jesus has to raise them up to immortality and eternal life.  

On 9/5/2025 at 7:55 AM, theplains said:

On 8/30/2025 at 4:19 PM, InCognitus said:

My comment was about the fact that others are called “first fruits”, not just Christ.  And, that the early Christians understood the afterlife to have different “abodes” (according to those who bear fruit) and Paul taught that there are varying degrees of “glory” in the resurrection, even “every man in his own order” for several distinct bands or classes of those who are raised from the dead.

Yes. Paul wrote about the celestial and telestial. Joseph Smith invented the telestial glory.

Actually, Paul wrote about the celestial, terrestrial and telestial: “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:41–42).

The “telestial” was not invented by Joseph Smith.  It was given by revelation from God in Doctrine and Covenants section 76.

On 9/5/2025 at 7:55 AM, theplains said:

On 8/30/2025 at 4:19 PM, InCognitus said:

What you say above proves what I was saying before, that others are referred to as “first fruits” in scripture (not just Christ), which would then allow for others that may be referred to as “first fruits” of the resurrection.  If, as Paul taught, that there are several distinct bands or classes of those who are raised from the dead (i.e. “every man in his own order”), then this obviously allows for others besides Christ who are the “first fruits” of the resurrection.

But only Christ is mentioned as the firstfruits of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20).

Jesus is the first to be resurrected: Colossians 1:18, he is "the firstborn from the dead", 1 Corinthians 15:20 "the firstfruits of them that slept", Revelation 1:5 "the first begotten of the dead", and  Acts 26:23, "That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead".  And none of these references say that Jesus is the one and only firstfruits of the resurrection.

But others are mentioned as firstfruits of the resurrection in the revelations that God has given in the Doctrine and Covenants.

On 9/5/2025 at 7:55 AM, theplains said:

One could speculate that those who were raised to life after Christ's resurrection and 
went into Jerusalem also had immortal bodies but an allusion to their bodies being changed 
to incorruptible ones (like 1 Corinthians 15 says) is not inferred.

For the saints that were resurrected in Matthew 27:52-53, their bodies weren’t “changed”, their bodies were raised up from the grave as incorruptible immortal bodies to begin with, the same way Jesus was resurrected.

The only references to being “changed” in 1 Corinthians 15 have to do with those who are alive when Christ comes, and their bodies will be “changed” from corruptible to incorruptible.

On 9/5/2025 at 7:55 AM, theplains said:

How do you define "first fruits of the resurrection" within context of your quote about "every 
man in his own order"?  Do you believe both terrestrials and telestials qualify?

Every man will be resurrected “in his own order”, or as Thayer’s Lexicon put it, “Paul specifies several distinct bands or classes of those raised from the dead”.  

The righteous are resurrected first (starting with Christ) and the wicked are resurrected last after the millennial reign of Christ (Revelation 20:5).  And “every man in his own order” according to the several distinct bands or classes tells us that there are successive resurrections in between.  No doubt the first of those are considered “firstfruits” of the resurrection along with Christ, who was the very first.

On 9/5/2025 at 7:55 AM, theplains said:

On 8/30/2025 at 4:19 PM, InCognitus said:

Exactly right, as they receive only the presence of the Son.

What does it mean that the terrestrials would only receive the presence of the Son and the 
telestials would only receive the presence of the Holy Ghost?

It means what it says.  For those of the telestial kingdom it says:

“These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial;  And the terrestrial through the ministration of the celestial.  And also the telestial receive it of the administering of angels who are appointed to minister for them, or who are appointed to be ministering spirits for them; for they shall be heirs of salvation” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:86-88).

And similarly, for those of the terrestrial kingdom: 

“These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.  These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:76-77).

On 9/5/2025 at 7:55 AM, theplains said:

On 8/30/2025 at 4:19 PM, InCognitus said:

This is correct.  Those who do not follow the Spirit of God do not inherit all that God has for them.

The terrestrials, telestials, and those in the two lower divisions of the celestial kingdom did 
not follow the Spirit of God. They did not inherit all that God had for them.  Only the sons (the 
heirs) did.  If sons, then heirs.

That's correct. Only those who are covenant sons of God inherit all that God has for them.  All others, even though they are children of God in the sense that they are the offspring of God and God is the Father of spirits, are not children of God in the covenant sense of the word for inheritance.

On 9/5/2025 at 7:55 AM, theplains said:

On 8/30/2025 at 4:19 PM, InCognitus said:

“But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20).  Jesus was indeed the first among many who are “firstfruits”.

But the "many" are not the firstfruits from the dead.  But they are firstfruits in that they are 
Christ's.  I elaborated more about this above.

Not all the “firstfruits” have been resurrected as of now.  But there are indeed other “firstfruits” from the dead, because Doctrine and Covenants section 88 says they are. 

On 9/5/2025 at 7:55 AM, theplains said:

On 8/30/2025 at 4:19 PM, InCognitus said:

But isn’t that what many Christians do today?  They don’t want apostles or prophets.  They don’t want to be led by the spirit of God, they want to follow their traditions and shop around to find the church that teaches what they want to hear, according to how they want to interpret scripture.  Or what’s the difference?

What happens to them?

Various churches have leaders who operate as apostles or prophets without necessary calling 
themselves Apostle John or Prophet Joe.  But I have not seen any exhibit the miraculous signs and 
wonders which existed in the early church. I think this happens more in parts of the world where 
the church is struggling with severe persecution.

I don't shop around for a church that will teach me what I want to hear.  If my church stops 
preaching the word of God, I leave it and find another which does. I don't believe any person 
(so-called prophet or apostle) who would teach God was not God from all eternity to eternity but 
was once a man who became the Heavenly Father of our Earth.

Preferring to interpret scripture yourself or presupposing a certain set of traditional interpretations of scripture and imposing those traditional doctrines upon scripture and trying to find ways around verses of scripture that don’t support those traditional views is not following the Spirit of God.

And you still didn’t answer my question.  For the Christians who do what I just explained above (by not following the Spirit of God in the context of Romans 8:14), what happens to them? 

On 9/5/2025 at 7:55 AM, theplains said:

On 8/30/2025 at 4:19 PM, InCognitus said:

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

By offspring, I don't mean spirits as offspring of Heavenly Parents.  I just mean creation by God 
alone.  I know you accept the latter position.

I accept the biblical position and biblical usage of the Greek word génos in the context of Acts 17:28-29, where Paul taught that we are all the offspring of God (the very same kind of being as God), where Paul couldn’t have possibly meant “creation by God alone” as you believe. 

Which understanding makes more sense in the context of Paul’s teachings?

“For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of [many modern Christian commentaries] have said, For we are also [created by God out of nothing].  Forasmuch then as we are [created by God out of nothing], we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.”  (Acts 17:28–29)

Or:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also [the same kind of being as God] his offspring.  Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God [same kind of being as God], we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.”  (Acts 17:28–29)

Which one makes more sense, and which one would be the way Paul's Greek speaking audience would understand it?

Why can’t you accept the meaning that Paul intended and how his Greek audience would have understood it?  

On 9/5/2025 at 7:55 AM, theplains said:

On 8/30/2025 at 4:19 PM, InCognitus said:

So, the Bible does say some “children” are heirs (the children of the covenant), and others are not.  You just need to believe Jesus and the rest of the Bible too, not just a few verses out of context.

Even unbelievers are viewed as children of God in a created, non-procreated sense.

Using that logic, even cockroaches, dogs, snails and rocks (gold or silver or stone) could be viewed as children of God in a created, non-procreated sense.

Certainly, there is a sense that Jesus Christ is the “father” of creation, but that meaning of the word “father” refers to him being the one who performed it.  It is like referring to the founders of a country as the founding “fathers”, or the early Christian “fathers”.  But that meaning doesn’t include the idea that we are the “children” of such fathers.

There is only one possible way that Paul could have meant it in the context of Acts 17:28-29, as children of God in the sense that we are all the same kind of being as God, his génos or offspring.  God is the “Father of spirits”.

Why is it so hard to accept what Paul was teaching the Athenians as recorded in the Bible?  

On 9/5/2025 at 7:55 AM, theplains said:

The other 
children are in an adopted sense – those led by the Spirit of God.  If sons, then heirs (Romans 
8:14-17). 

That is only one other sense of what it means to be children of God, yes.  But there are other possibilities as explained in scripture as well as mentioned above and elsewhere.

On 9/5/2025 at 7:55 AM, theplains said:

Being made in the image of God is not about body parts.

Right, even though the Hebrew words for “image” and “likeness” in Genesis 1:26 refer to form, shape, and appearance or resemblance.  We certainly couldn’t have that referring to body parts in modern Christianity, as that would contradict so many traditional views.

On 9/5/2025 at 7:55 AM, theplains said:

On 8/30/2025 at 4:19 PM, InCognitus said:

Right, but the difference is that Peter said that Christ only visited the disobedient that were killed in the flood, not the corrupt and violent.  And I already explained the difference between “disobedience” and “corrupt”.

Violent and corrupt people are disobedient.

And disobedient people are violent and corrupt, right?  Nope.

You are just repeating yourself.  I’ve already demonstrated the vast difference between the meaning of corruption and disobedience.  See more below.

On 9/5/2025 at 7:55 AM, theplains said:

On 8/30/2025 at 4:19 PM, InCognitus said:

  It seems you also believe that some on the earth in the days of Noah were not corrupt and violent, since you also acknowledged that Noah could not have possibly preached to every single man, woman, and child on the earth prior to the flood.  Or do you really believe every man, woman, and child that perished in the flood was “corrupt and violent”?

All I can go with is what Genesis 6:5,11-13 says.

I go with what Genesis 6:5, 11-13 says and what 1 Peter 3:19-20 says.

Didn’t Peter, the apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, know what Genesis 6:5, and 11-13 says?  I’m quite sure he did.  So why didn’t Peter say Jesus went and preached to the corrupt and violent ones?  There has to be a very good reason that Peter chose to use the far less severe word of “disobedient” in 1 Peter 3:20 to describe the people that Jesus taught, don’t you think?

On 9/5/2025 at 7:55 AM, theplains said:

The idea that Jesus visited and preached to those who would inherit a terrestrial glory is not 
found in Doctrine and Covenants 138.

You are just repeating yourself again.  We’ve already discussed all of this.

Jesus visiting and preaching to those of the terrestrial realm is revealed elsewhere in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 76:73 and alluded to in 88:99.  Section 138 just doesn’t get into those details, nor does it preclude that from happening.

Edited September 6, 2025 by InCognitus

[theplains]

On 9/6/2025 at 4:58 PM, InCognitus said:

But I believe this was a sign of the resurrection of Jesus and a demonstration of the power that Jesus has to raise them up to immortality and eternal life.

What happened throughout the centuries to all those you believe were raised up to immortality 
and eternal life and entered Jerusalem plus all those Nephites who were supposedly raised to 
immortality (3 Nephi 23:9-10) plus all those of all the other scattered tribes Jesus supposedly 
visited (3 Nephi 16:1-3) after his resurrection if some were also resurrected there?
 

On 9/6/2025 at 4:58 PM, InCognitus said:

Actually, Paul wrote about the celestial, terrestrial and telestial: “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:41–42).

The “telestial” was not invented by Joseph Smith.  It was given by revelation from God in Doctrine and Covenants section 76.

If you read the chapter more carefully, Paul is only comparing two aspects, not three.  

"There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, 
and the glory of the terrestrial is another". 

There is no telestial.

"There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: 
for one star differeth from another star in glory".

Stars, like the moon, are celestial objects. The earth and everything pertaining to it are 
terrestrial.

The comparison between two (not three) aspect continues.

1[ Resurrection of the dead: sown in corruption, raised in incorruption. Sown in dishonour, raised 
in glory. Sown in weakness; it is raised in power. Sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body

2] Two main types of body: there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. The natural 
body came first.  LDS theology has this in reverse. 

"As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also 
that are heavenly".  Again, this is comparing terrestrial and celestial.

3] Future glory: "And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of 
the heavenly".  Heavenly in this case symbolizes celestial glory.

Not all have the same glory in the terrestrial.  Not all will have the same glory in the celestial.
 

On 9/6/2025 at 4:58 PM, InCognitus said:

Jesus is the first to be resurrected: Colossians 1:18, he is "the firstborn from the dead", 1 Corinthians 15:20 "the firstfruits of them that slept", Revelation 1:5 "the first begotten of the dead", and  Acts 26:23, "That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead".  And none of these references say that Jesus is the one and only firstfruits of the resurrection.

But others are mentioned as firstfruits of the resurrection in the revelations that God has given in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Do you believe the terms "firstborn from the dead" and "firstfruits of them that slept" (applicable 
to Christ) also apply to all those who were raised and appeared in Jerusalem?

Please supply one church teaching that says others besides Christ are "firstfruits of the 
resurrection" or "firstfruits of the dead". Consider #1 below.

Look again at the church's definition of firstfruits:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/firstfruits?lang=eng

#1 The first crops gathered in a season. In Old Testament times, they were offered to the Lord 
(Lev. 23:9–20). Jesus Christ was the firstfruits unto God in that He was the first to be resurrected 
(1 Cor. 15:20, 23; 2 Ne. 2:9). 

#2 Those who accept the gospel and endure to the end in faithfulness are in a symbolic way the 
firstfruits, for they belong to God. Those who follow the Lamb wherever he goes are the firstfruits 
unto God, Rev. 14:4.

#3 They who shall first descend with Christ are the firstfruits, D&C 88:98.

#1 is clearly excluding terrestrials. It is also excluding the second person raised after Christ 
was raised.

#2 is clearly excluding terrestrials because they did not endure to the end in faithfulness – they 
had not achieved exaltation.

#3 only mentions verse 98 and excludes verse 99; a terrestrial reference, those in the second trump.

Verses 98-100 mentions the first, second, and third trumps:

The first trump:   "They are Christ's, the firstfruits, they who shall descend with him first, 
and they who are on the earth and in their graves, who are first caught up to meet him; and all 
this by the voice of the sounding of the trump of the angel of God".

The second trump: "And after this another angel shall sound, which is the second trump; and then 
cometh the redemption of those who are Christ's at his coming; who have received their part in 
that prison which is prepared for them, that they might receive the gospel, and be judged 
according to men in the flesh".

Those in the second trump are not called the firstfruits.

The third trump: "And again, another trump shall sound, which is the third trump; and then come 
the spirits of men who are to be judged, and are found under condemnation".

The second trump is not the same as the first trump or the first resurrection.

It's actually fearful to be in the second trump.  See Mosiah 26:25-27.

"And it shall come to pass that when the second trump shall sound then shall they that never knew 
me come forth and shall stand before me. And then shall they know that I am the Lord their God, 
that I am their Redeemer; but they would not be redeemed. And then I will confess unto them that 
I never knew them; and they shall depart into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his 
angels".

Putting the second trump of D&C 138:99 together with Mosiah 26:25-27 would show the terrestrials 
(classified as "are Christ's") are also those who never knew him and who will depart into 
everlasting fire.
 

On 9/6/2025 at 4:58 PM, InCognitus said:

It means what it says.  For those of the telestial kingdom it says:

“These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial;  And the terrestrial through the ministration of the celestial.  And also the telestial receive it of the administering of angels who are appointed to minister for them, or who are appointed to be ministering spirits for them; for they shall be heirs of salvation” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:86-88).

And similarly, for those of the terrestrial kingdom: 

“These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.  These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:76-77).

They of the telestial kingdom however receive of the fulness of the Holy Spirit, another God in 
LDS theology.

Let me know where in Doctrine and Covenants 138:12-17 (a description of those Jesus visited and 
preached to in the spirit world before his resurrection), do you find those who would inherit a 
terrestrial glory.
 

On 9/6/2025 at 4:58 PM, InCognitus said:

That's correct. Only those who are covenant sons of God inherit all that God has for them.  All others, even though they are children of God in the sense that they are the offspring of God and God is the Father of spirits, are not children of God in the covenant sense of the word for inheritance.

Romans 8:9-17 is speaking of the covenant sons (sons by adoption). They are the ones entitled to 
call God their Heavenly Father.

You mentioned inheritance. Do the covenant sons share their land inheritance with non-covenant 
sons, or do you exclude that blessing?
 

On 9/6/2025 at 4:58 PM, InCognitus said:

And you still didn’t answer my question.  For the Christians who do what I just explained above (by not following the Spirit of God in the context of Romans 8:14), what happens to them? 

What happens to them is covered in Romans 8:9. They don't reside in the Kingdom of God. They are 
not regarded as covenant sons. They are neither the sons of Hagar or of Jerusalem (Galatians 
4:22-26).

As Romans 8:9,14-17 says of these covenant sons:

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. 
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (9)

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (14)

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. (15)

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (16) 

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". (17) 

Only those in the adoption class are entitled to call God their Heavenly Father.
 

On 9/6/2025 at 4:58 PM, InCognitus said:

Which one makes more sense, and which one would be the way Paul's Greek speaking audience would understand it?

Why can’t you accept the meaning that Paul intended and how his Greek audience would have understood it?

There is no scripture that speaks of spirits (uncreated eternal intelligences) becoming spirit 
children of Heavenly Mother(s).
 

On 9/6/2025 at 4:58 PM, InCognitus said:

There is only one possible way that Paul could have meant it in the context of Acts 17:28-29, as children of God in the sense that we are all the same kind of being as God, his génos or offspring.  God is the “Father of spirits”.

Why is it so hard to accept what Paul was teaching the Athenians as recorded in the Bible?

Paul is not speaking of procreation of a Heavenly Father with his heavenly wives.
 
There is no scripture that speaks of spirits (uncreated eternal intelligences) becoming spirit 
children of Heavenly Mother(s) so the LDS Church invents a "Mother of Spirits".
 

On 9/6/2025 at 4:58 PM, InCognitus said:

   Right, even though the Hebrew words for “image” and “likeness” in Genesis 1:26 refer to form, shape, and appearance or resemblance.  We certainly couldn’t have that referring to body parts in modern Christianity, as that would contradict so many traditional views.

Why does scripture, in Genesis 5:3, say this ("in his own likeness, after his image") of only one 
of Adam's many children?

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; 
and called his name Seth".

Does "after his image" mean something more deeper?
 

On 9/6/2025 at 4:58 PM, InCognitus said:

I go with what Genesis 6:5, 11-13 says and what 1 Peter 3:19-20 says.

Didn’t Peter, the apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, know what Genesis 6:5, and 11-13 says?  I’m quite sure he did.  So why didn’t Peter say Jesus went and preached to the corrupt and violent ones?  There has to be a very good reason that Peter chose to use the far less severe word of “disobedient” in 1 Peter 3:20 to describe the people that Jesus taught, don’t you think?

1 Peter 3:18-20 refers to all the unsaved who perished in the flood.  These unsaved are the 
disobedient as Peter worded it, as corrupt and violent as Genesis 6:5 worded it. 

It seems you exclude violent and corrupt people from those verses in 1 Peter 3 and only focus on 
the "disobedience" part.  

But that qualifier is found in Doctrine and Covenants 138:28 ("And as I wondered, my eyes were 
opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among 
the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them").  

According to this D&C passage, Jesus did not go to the wicked AND to the disobedient. But 1 Peter 
3:18-20 says he did go to the disobedient.  

I'm not sure why D&C 138 would differentiate between wicked and disobedient. The disobedient are 
viewed as wicked when you really think about it.  Wickedness is corruptness. They are the opposite
of holiness.

Maybe you want to try and rationalize D&C 138:28 and believe those who perished in the flood were 
disobedient but not wicked or not corrupt.

[InCognitus]

On 9/15/2025 at 12:12 PM, theplains said:

On 9/6/2025 at 2:58 PM, InCognitus said:

But I believe this was a sign of the resurrection of Jesus and a demonstration of the power that Jesus has to raise them up to immortality and eternal life.

What happened throughout the centuries to all those you believe were raised up to immortality 
and eternal life and entered Jerusalem plus all those Nephites who were supposedly raised to 
immortality (3 Nephi 23:9-10) plus all those of all the other scattered tribes Jesus supposedly 
visited (3 Nephi 16:1-3) after his resurrection if some were also resurrected there?

“All those”?  God has chosen only a select few to come forth early in the resurrection for various purposes.  

One reason would be for them to witness to the same kind of resurrection as Jesus Christ, as shown in Matthew 27:51-53 or as reported in Helaman 14:25-26.  

Another reason is for those who are raised up to be called to do specific work in the restoration, where physical resurrected beings are needed, for the restoration of the priesthood and to restore the keys for various things. Individuals such as John the Baptist, Peter and James, Moses, Moroni, and others may be in this category.

What happened to them?  They were taken to heaven by God, to be used in the work of God as may be needed from time to time.

On 9/15/2025 at 12:12 PM, theplains said:

On 9/6/2025 at 2:58 PM, InCognitus said:

Actually, Paul wrote about the celestial, terrestrial and telestial: “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:41–42).

The “telestial” was not invented by Joseph Smith.  It was given by revelation from God in Doctrine and Covenants section 76.

If you read the chapter more carefully, Paul is only comparing two aspects, not three.  

"There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, 
and the glory of the terrestrial is another". 

There is no telestial.

Sun, moon, and stars.  I count three comparisons of glory there, don’t you?  And “so also is the resurrection from the dead”, Paul says.  I take it to mean exactly that.

Notice that those three glories are all heavenly, and are separate from the earthly comparison that Paul makes in relation to mortality and immortality in the verses that follow.

On 9/15/2025 at 12:12 PM, theplains said:

"There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: 
for one star differeth from another star in glory".

Stars, like the moon, are celestial objects. The earth and everything pertaining to it are 
terrestrial.

The comparison between two (not three) aspect continues.

Except Paul is no longer talking about three degrees of glory of the resurrection from this point forward, he’s talking about the difference between mortality and immortality (two distinct situations), as I noted above.  It is the difference between how we are now compared to how we will be when resurrected.  He already addressed the three degrees of glory earlier.

On 9/15/2025 at 12:12 PM, theplains said:

1[ Resurrection of the dead: sown in corruption, raised in incorruption. Sown in dishonour, raised 
in glory. Sown in weakness; it is raised in power. Sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body

2] Two main types of body: there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. The natural 
body came first.  LDS theology has this in reverse. 

Don’t fall into that trap.  A “spiritual body” is one that is made alive by the spirit, which is completely different than spirit beings in the premortal life.   

Jesus is a perfect example of this.  He existed prior to coming to this earth as a spirit, he was born of Mary into mortality, and he died and was resurrected on the third day with a physical, tangible body of flesh and bones as he explained in Luke 24:39.  So from a physical body point of view, Jesus first attained a “natural body” when he was born of Mary, and he attained a “spiritual body” when he was resurrected, even though he had existed as a spirit being prior to being born of Mary. Do you think Jesus got it in reverse too?

On 9/15/2025 at 12:12 PM, theplains said:

"As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also 
that are heavenly".  Again, this is comparing terrestrial and celestial.

3] Future glory: "And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of 
the heavenly".  Heavenly in this case symbolizes celestial glory.

Not all have the same glory in the terrestrial.  Not all will have the same glory in the celestial.

Remember, the “heavenly” includes the glory of the sun, moon, and stars, which represent the three degrees of glory, which Paul says, “so also is the resurrection of the dead”.

On 9/15/2025 at 12:12 PM, theplains said:

On 9/6/2025 at 2:58 PM, InCognitus said:

Jesus is the first to be resurrected: Colossians 1:18, he is "the firstborn from the dead", 1 Corinthians 15:20 "the firstfruits of them that slept", Revelation 1:5 "the first begotten of the dead", and  Acts 26:23, "That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead".  And none of these references say that Jesus is the one and only firstfruits of the resurrection.

But others are mentioned as firstfruits of the resurrection in the revelations that God has given in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Do you believe the terms "firstborn from the dead" and "firstfruits of them that slept" (applicable 
to Christ) also apply to all those who were raised and appeared in Jerusalem?

You realize that “firstborn” and “first begotten” are singular nouns and “firstfruits” is plural, don’t you?

Jesus is THE “firstfruits” of them that slept (the first of the firstfruits), but there are clearly other “firstfruits” of the resurrection.

On 9/15/2025 at 12:12 PM, theplains said:

Please supply one church teaching that says others besides Christ are "firstfruits of the 
resurrection" or "firstfruits of the dead". Consider #1 below.

Look again at the church's definition of firstfruits:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/firstfruits?lang=eng

#1 The first crops gathered in a season. In Old Testament times, they were offered to the Lord 
(Lev. 23:9–20). Jesus Christ was the firstfruits unto God in that He was the first to be resurrected 
(1 Cor. 15:20, 23; 2 Ne. 2:9). 

#2 Those who accept the gospel and endure to the end in faithfulness are in a symbolic way the 
firstfruits, for they belong to God. Those who follow the Lamb wherever he goes are the firstfruits 
unto God, Rev. 14:4.

#3 They who shall first descend with Christ are the firstfruits, D&C 88:98.

#1 is clearly excluding terrestrials. It is also excluding the second person raised after Christ 
was raised.

#2 is clearly excluding terrestrials because they did not endure to the end in faithfulness – they 
had not achieved exaltation.

#3 only mentions verse 98 and excludes verse 99; a terrestrial reference, those in the second trump.

Verses 98-100 mentions the first, second, and third trumps:

Didn’t you just answer your own question using Doctrine and Covenants 88:98?

If that isn’t enough, see Book of Mormon Seminary Student Manual (2024):

“What is the First Resurrection?  Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught:

“Those coming forth in the morning of this resurrection do so with celestial bodies and shall inherit a celestial glory; these are they who are Christ’s the firstfruits. Those coming forth in the afternoon of this resurrection do so with terrestrial bodies and consequently shall inherit that kingdom; they are described as being Christ’s at this coming. All who have been resurrected so far have received celestial bodies; the coming forth of terrestrial beings does not commence until after the Second Coming. (Doctrine and Covenants 76:50–80; 88:95–99.) (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary [1965], 1:196)”

See also Doctrines of the Gospel Teacher Manual, Chapter 32: The Resurrection and Judgement.

On 9/15/2025 at 12:12 PM, theplains said:

The first trump:   "They are Christ's, the firstfruits, they who shall descend with him first, 
and they who are on the earth and in their graves, who are first caught up to meet him; and all 
this by the voice of the sounding of the trump of the angel of God".

The second trump: "And after this another angel shall sound, which is the second trump; and then 
cometh the redemption of those who are Christ's at his coming; who have received their part in 
that prison which is prepared for them, that they might receive the gospel, and be judged 
according to men in the flesh".

Those in the second trump are not called the firstfruits.

The third trump: "And again, another trump shall sound, which is the third trump; and then come 
the spirits of men who are to be judged, and are found under condemnation".

The second trump is not the same as the first trump or the first resurrection.

It's actually fearful to be in the second trump.  See Mosiah 26:25-27.

"And it shall come to pass that when the second trump shall sound then shall they that never knew 
me come forth and shall stand before me. And then shall they know that I am the Lord their God, 
that I am their Redeemer; but they would not be redeemed. And then I will confess unto them that 
I never knew them; and they shall depart into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his 
angels".

Putting the second trump of D&C 138:99 together with Mosiah 26:25-27 would show the terrestrials 
(classified as "are Christ's") are also those who never knew him and who will depart into 
everlasting fire.

You will never get things to work out if you start counting trumps out of context.  Trumps and trumpets are mentioned all throughout the Bible and all the scriptures, and they indicate different things in different contexts (for example, the seven trumpets of Revelation chapter 8).  

In most cases only the extremes are discussed throughout the scriptures, the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15), the resurrection of life or the resurrection of damnation (John 5:29), or those who awake to everlasting life and others to everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2).  Mosiah is just doing more of the same, with the “second trump” representing those who come forth in the end.

On 9/15/2025 at 12:12 PM, theplains said:

On 9/6/2025 at 2:58 PM, InCognitus said:

It means what it says.  For those of the telestial kingdom it says:

“These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial;  And the terrestrial through the ministration of the celestial.  And also the telestial receive it of the administering of angels who are appointed to minister for them, or who are appointed to be ministering spirits for them; for they shall be heirs of salvation” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:86-88).

And similarly, for those of the terrestrial kingdom: 

“These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.  These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:76-77).

They of the telestial kingdom however receive of the fulness of the Holy Spirit, another God in 
LDS theology.

Let me know where in Doctrine and Covenants 138:12-17 (a description of those Jesus visited and 
preached to in the spirit world before his resurrection), do you find those who would inherit a 
terrestrial glory.

You are repeating yourself.  This question has already been answered in this thread several times by me and others.

See my post on 04/22/2025 where I said:

“The revelation in section 138 focuses only on the extremes:  those of the celestial realm who are called to preach the gospel to others, and those of the telestial realm (those in darkness) to whom Jesus did not go to teach personally.”

And my post on 05/20/2025 where you still didn’t get that I had answered your question and I said:

“We’ve already been through this.  You are setting up a false dichotomy.  Section 138 focuses on extremes (the righteous and the wicked).  Not mentioning those in the intermediate state does not automatically lump them in with one or the other.”

On 9/15/2025 at 12:12 PM, theplains said:

On 9/6/2025 at 2:58 PM, InCognitus said:

That's correct. Only those who are covenant sons of God inherit all that God has for them.  All others, even though they are children of God in the sense that they are the offspring of God and God is the Father of spirits, are not children of God in the covenant sense of the word for inheritance.

Romans 8:9-17 is speaking of the covenant sons (sons by adoption). They are the ones entitled to 
call God their Heavenly Father.

They are the ones entitled to call God their Father in a covenant sense, but God is the Father of all spirits (Hebrews 12:9), and remember that Jesus said that we (all men) should love our enemies and do good to those who hate us so that “ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:45).

God is the Father of us all, but those who are covenant children of God have a special connection with him as their Father.

On 9/15/2025 at 12:12 PM, theplains said:

You mentioned inheritance. Do the covenant sons share their land inheritance with non-covenant 
sons, or do you exclude that blessing?

Where do you see non-covenant sons inheriting the earth?   “The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.” (Psalms 37:29)

On 9/15/2025 at 12:12 PM, theplains said:

On 9/6/2025 at 2:58 PM, InCognitus said:

And you still didn’t answer my question.  For the Christians who do what I just explained above (by not following the Spirit of God in the context of Romans 8:14), what happens to them? 

What happens to them is covered in Romans 8:9. They don't reside in the Kingdom of God. They are 
not regarded as covenant sons. They are neither the sons of Hagar or of Jerusalem (Galatians 
4:22-26).

So do they go to hell, or what happens to them (the Christians who aren’t led by the spirit of God) in the final judgement?  

Are you saying it is covered in Romans 8:9?  "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his"(Romans 8:9).

On 9/15/2025 at 12:12 PM, theplains said:

As Romans 8:9,14-17 says of these covenant sons:

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. 
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (9)

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (14)

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. (15)

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (16) 

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". (17) 

Only those in the adoption class are entitled to call God their Heavenly Father.

I don’t see the word “only” in verse 15, do you?  According to Jesus he is the Father of all but we must behave like him so that we “may be” his children (Matthew 5:45).  And, “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven” (Matthew 6:9).

On 9/15/2025 at 12:12 PM, theplains said:

On 9/6/2025 at 2:58 PM, InCognitus said:

Which one makes more sense, and which one would be the way Paul's Greek speaking audience would understand it?

Why can’t you accept the meaning that Paul intended and how his Greek audience would have understood it?

There is no scripture that speaks of spirits (uncreated eternal intelligences) becoming spirit 
children of Heavenly Mother(s).

You keep avoiding what Paul was teaching in Acts 17:28-29 for some reason. 

What did Paul mean when he taught that we are all the same kind of being as God, his offspring?  You posted a modern Christian commentary, but it just made things worse and didn’t even address the meaning of the Greek word génos.  Do you believe what Paul taught, that we are all the same kind of being as God, his offspring?  Or do you reject that teaching?

On 9/15/2025 at 12:12 PM, theplains said:

On 9/6/2025 at 2:58 PM, InCognitus said:

There is only one possible way that Paul could have meant it in the context of Acts 17:28-29, as children of God in the sense that we are all the same kind of being as God, his génos or offspring.  God is the “Father of spirits”.

Why is it so hard to accept what Paul was teaching the Athenians as recorded in the Bible?

Paul is not speaking of procreation of a Heavenly Father with his heavenly wives.

Remember, it was you that 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.”  Is this true or false?

How would Paul’s audience have understood what Paul taught about the Christian God, that we are all the offspring of God?  They obviously understood his logic, because many of them pondered his meaning and some rejected their idols and joined the Christian church that day because of Paul’s teachings.  How do you think they understood Paul?

On 9/15/2025 at 12:12 PM, theplains said:

On 9/6/2025 at 2:58 PM, InCognitus said:

   Right, even though the Hebrew words for “image” and “likeness” in Genesis 1:26 refer to form, shape, and appearance or resemblance.  We certainly couldn’t have that referring to body parts in modern Christianity, as that would contradict so many traditional views.

Why does scripture, in Genesis 5:3, say this ("in his own likeness, after his image") of only one 
of Adam's many children?

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; 
and called his name Seth".

Does "after his image" mean something more deeper?

Only three of Adam’s children are ever named in the Bible (Abel, Cain, and Seth), so does naming only three of Adam’s “many children” mean something deeper for those three?

And in Genesis 5:3, where Seth is mentioned, it is the only place where a genealogy is given from Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, and so on, comparing God making Adam in his own image and likeness (in verse 1) to Adam begetting a son in his own image and likeness (in verse 3), perpetuating the image and likeness of God from Adam on down.  

So, pointing out that Adam begat Seth in his own likeness and after his image doesn’t seem like Seth is being singled out as special here, as it is part of the narrative context for establishing the fact that men perpetuate the image and likeness of God.

Do you think “image” and “likeness” means something deeper in this verse below?

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4).

On 9/15/2025 at 12:12 PM, theplains said:

On 9/6/2025 at 2:58 PM, InCognitus said:

I go with what Genesis 6:5, 11-13 says and what 1 Peter 3:19-20 says.

Didn’t Peter, the apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, know what Genesis 6:5, and 11-13 says?  I’m quite sure he did.  So why didn’t Peter say Jesus went and preached to the corrupt and violent ones?  There has to be a very good reason that Peter chose to use the far less severe word of “disobedient” in 1 Peter 3:20 to describe the people that Jesus taught, don’t you think?

1 Peter 3:18-20 refers to all the unsaved who perished in the flood.  These unsaved are the 
disobedient as Peter worded it, as corrupt and violent as Genesis 6:5 worded it. 

It seems you exclude violent and corrupt people from those verses in 1 Peter 3 and only focus on 
the "disobedience" part.  

What part of 1 Peter 3:18-20 refers to “all the unsaved who perished in the flood”? 

The verse simply says that Christ “went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water”. 

It doesn’t say anything about ‘all the unsaved” that I can find in those verses.

[theplains]

On 9/17/2025 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

“All those”?  God has chosen only a select few to come forth early in the resurrection for various purposes.  

One reason would be for them to witness to the same kind of resurrection as Jesus Christ, as shown in Matthew 27:51-53 or as reported in Helaman 14:25-26.  

Another reason is for those who are raised up to be called to do specific work in the restoration, where physical resurrected beings are needed, for the restoration of the priesthood and to restore the keys for various things. Individuals such as John the Baptist, Peter and James, Moses, Moroni, and others may be in this category.

What happened to them?  They were taken to heaven by God, to be used in the work of God as may be needed from time to time.

Where do you come up with a "select few" from the "many" that were mentioned in Matthew 27:51-53, 
3 Nephi 23:9-10, and supposedly among all the scattered tribes (3 Nephi 16:1-3) at the time of the 
earthquake around Christ's death.

What did they do in their lifetime until 1830?  You seem to think they were all taken back to 
heaven but you didn't provide a scripture or church teaching.
 

On 9/17/2025 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Sun, moon, and stars.  I count three comparisons of glory there, don’t you?  And “so also is the resurrection from the dead”, Paul says.  I take it to mean exactly that.

Notice that those three glories are all heavenly, and are separate from the earthly comparison that Paul makes in relation to mortality and immortality in the verses that follow.

The earth is terrestrial.  In the earth, there are plants, animals, and humans.  Their glories 
are different but they are still all terrestrial.

Likewise for the Sun, moon, and stars. They are celestial objects. The planets are celestial 
objects.  Some planets even have their own moons.  The Sun is one of the smallest stars as our 
telescopes show. Betelgeuse and Antares are hundreds of times larger than the Sun.

All the celestial objects have a celestial glory even though there are billions+ more of them.
 

On 9/17/2025 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

A “spiritual body” is one that is made alive by the spirit, which is completely different than spirit beings in the premortal life.

What kind of body do pre-mortal spirits have?
 

On 9/17/2025 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

 Jesus is a perfect example of this.  He existed prior to coming to this earth as a spirit, he was born of Mary into mortality, and he died and was resurrected on the third day with a physical, tangible body of flesh and bones as he explained in Luke 24:39.  So from a physical body point of view, Jesus first attained a “natural body” when he was born of Mary, and he attained a “spiritual body” when he was resurrected, even though he had existed as a spirit being prior to being born of Mary. Do you think Jesus got it in reverse too?

That scripture (first natural, then spiritual) is a reference to the beings created by God on 
earth.  The idea that we lived with our heavenly parents in some celestial home after intelligences 
somehow became children of at least one heavenly mother is peculiar to the LDS faith.
 

On 9/17/2025 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

You realize that “firstborn” and “first begotten” are singular nouns and “firstfruits” is plural, don’t you?

Jesus is THE “firstfruits” of them that slept (the first of the firstfruits), but there are clearly other “firstfruits” of the resurrection.

Funny. You have no problem assigning firstborn to all worthy males in Ephraim's lineage and 
associating the priesthood with all of them.

You never did explain which of #1, #2, or #3 of the LDS Church's definitions of firstfruits applies 
to terrestrial inhabitants.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/firstfruits?lang=eng
 

On 9/17/2025 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Didn’t you just answer your own question using Doctrine and Covenants 88:98?

Based on what I provided earlier of the LDS Church's definition of firstfruits, Doctrine and 
Covenants 88:98 is not pointing to the terrestrials.
 

On 9/17/2025 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

If that isn’t enough, see Book of Mormon Seminary Student Manual (2024):

“What is the First Resurrection?  Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught:

“Those coming forth in the morning of this resurrection do so with celestial bodies and shall inherit a celestial glory; these are they who are Christ’s the firstfruits. Those coming forth in the afternoon of this resurrection do so with terrestrial bodies and consequently shall inherit that kingdom; they are described as being Christ’s at this coming. All who have been resurrected so far have received celestial bodies; the coming forth of terrestrial beings does not commence until after the Second Coming. (Doctrine and Covenants 76:50–80; 88:95–99.) (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary [1965], 1:196)”

See also Doctrines of the Gospel Teacher Manual, Chapter 32: The Resurrection and Judgement.

As mentioned earlier, the LDS Church's use of Doctrine and Covenants 88:98 to define firstfruits 
does not match the qualifications of the terrestrials.  They had not endured to the end.  Verse 98 
is not even speaking of them.

You can point to previous teachings of Elder McConkie and agree with them and then seemingly reject 
or disavow those from other leaders you don't agree with. I'll provide a lot more when I reply to 
your parts 1 and 2 from our much larger topic of "Ephraim, the birthright, and the gathering".

Chapter 32 of "Doctrines of the Gospel, Teacher's Manual" quotes a teaching by Joseph Fielding 
Smith in PreTest Answer #3 and mentions one of his compositions, "Doctrines of Salvation".  You 
should read the 3-volume set.  I wonder how much of it you would view as false and misleading or 
true and edifying.

https://ia801806.us.archive.org/8/items/JFSDoctrinesOfSalvation/JFSDoctrinesofSalvationv1-3.pdf

The Way to Perfection is another great resource for the theology of the early LDS Church.

https://dn720005.ca.archive.org/0/items/waytoperfections00smit/waytoperfections00smit.pdf

There is no morning and afternoon of the first resurrection in scripture.  By the way, all those 
in the first resurrection are priests and kings unto God (Revelation 20:6) but you want to lump 
terrestrials among those in the first resurrection.
 

On 9/17/2025 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

You will never get things to work out if you start counting trumps out of context.  Trumps and trumpets are mentioned all throughout the Bible and all the scriptures, and they indicate different things in different contexts (for example, the seven trumpets of Revelation chapter 8).  

In most cases only the extremes are discussed throughout the scriptures, the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15), the resurrection of life or the resurrection of damnation (John 5:29), or those who awake to everlasting life and others to everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2).  Mosiah is just doing more of the same, with the “second trump” representing those who come forth in the end.

Don't forget that for many a resurrection of life will also be a resurrection of damnation - for 
all those who fail to return to live with Heavenly Father.

Mosiah 26:25-27 is speaking of the second trump.

"And it shall come to pass that when the second trump shall sound then shall they that never knew 
me come forth and shall stand before me. And then shall they know that I am the Lord their God, 
that I am their Redeemer; but they would not be redeemed. And then I will confess unto them that 
I never knew them; and they shall depart into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his 
angels".

Maybe you can elaborate which of the first, second, and third trumps (of Doctrine and Covenants 
88:98-100) correspond to the celestials, terrestrials, and telestials and identify those who, as 
you said, "come forth in the end".

Please explain the context of the second trump of Mosiah 26 and how it is different from the three 
trumps of Doctrine and Covenants 88.
 

On 9/17/2025 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Where do you see non-covenant sons inheriting the earth?   “The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.” (Psalms 37:29)

The non-covenant sons have no inheritance.

Ok.  So your terrestrials and telestials are sent somewhere else, not to any other earth where 
the covenant sons are inheriting in their respective sphere.  Maybe they are sent to the moons 
of planets.
 

On 9/17/2025 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

So do they go to hell, or what happens to them (the Christians who aren’t led by the spirit of God) in the final judgement?  

Are you saying it is covered in Romans 8:9?  "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his"(Romans 8:9).

I'll let God be the judge.  Non-covenant sons are not of Christ. They are not the heirs.
 

On 9/17/2025 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

I don’t see the word “only” in verse 15, do you?  According to Jesus he is the Father of all but we must behave like him so that we “may be” his children (Matthew 5:45).  And, “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven” (Matthew 6:9).

This reminds me of a Star Trek movie.  The younger Spock calls "Father" as he faces the back of 
the older Spock.  The older Spock responds by saying, "I am not our Father".

Jesus is not our Heavenly Father but I understand this is what Mosiah teaches

"And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the 
flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—The Father, because he was conceived 
by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son".

Jesus is not the Son because of the flesh; he is the Son before the incarnation.

Jesus is not the Father because he was conceived by Heavenly Father or a heavenly mother.

In that prayer "Our Father …", Jesus is not referring to himself. "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me 
not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend 
unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God" (John 20:17).
 

On 9/17/2025 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

You keep avoiding what Paul was teaching in Acts 17:28-29 for some reason. 

What did Paul mean when he taught that we are all the same kind of being as God, his offspring?  You posted a modern Christian commentary, but it just made things worse and didn’t even address the meaning of the Greek word génos.  Do you believe what Paul taught, that we are all the same kind of being as God, his offspring?  Or do you reject that teaching?

I didn't have anything else to offer beside what I wrote earlier.
 

On 9/17/2025 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Remember, it was you that 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.”  Is this true or false?

How would Paul’s audience have understood what Paul taught about the Christian God, that we are all the offspring of God?  They obviously understood his logic, because many of them pondered his meaning and some rejected their idols and joined the Christian church that day because of Paul’s teachings.  How do you think they understood Paul?

Same comment as above.  But they did not understand Paul as teaching there was one or more heavenly 
mothers.  Unless you believe Heavenly Mother is really the Queen of Heaven of the Old Testament.
 

On 9/17/2025 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Only three of Adam’s children are ever named in the Bible (Abel, Cain, and Seth), so does naming only three of Adam’s “many children” mean something deeper for those three?

And in Genesis 5:3, where Seth is mentioned, it is the only place where a genealogy is given from Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, and so on, comparing God making Adam in his own image and likeness (in verse 1) to Adam begetting a son in his own image and likeness (in verse 3), perpetuating the image and likeness of God from Adam on down.  

So, pointing out that Adam begat Seth in his own likeness and after his image doesn’t seem like Seth is being singled out as special here, as it is part of the narrative context for establishing the fact that men perpetuate the image and likeness of God.

Do you think “image” and “likeness” means something deeper in this verse below?

I think it means Seth was more like Adam than any of Adam's sons.  In similar fashion, Adam and 
Eve were more like God than their descendants.
 

On 9/17/2025 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

What part of 1 Peter 3:18-20 refers to “all the unsaved who perished in the flood”? 

The verse simply says that Christ “went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water”. 

It doesn’t say anything about ‘all the unsaved” that I can find in those verses.

Only eight were saved. The others were unsaved (not saved). This is because the world was corrupt 
and filled with violence. 

It seems you exclude violent and corrupt people from those verses in 1 Peter 3 and only focus on 
the "disobedience" part.  

But that qualifier is found in Doctrine and Covenants 138:28 ("And as I wondered, my eyes were 
opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the 
wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them").  

According to this D&C passage, Jesus did not go to the wicked AND to the disobedient. But 1 Peter 
3:18-20 says he did go to the disobedient.  

I'm not sure why Doctrine and Covenants 138 would differentiate between wicked and disobedient. 
The disobedient are viewed as wicked when you really think about it.  Wickedness is corruptness. 
They are the opposite of holiness.

Maybe you want to try and rationalize Doctrine and Covenants 138:28 and believe those who perished 
in the flood were disobedient but not wicked or not corrupt.

[InCognitus]

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

On 9/16/2025 at 11:23 PM, InCognitus said:

“All those”?  God has chosen only a select few to come forth early in the resurrection for various purposes.  

One reason would be for them to witness to the same kind of resurrection as Jesus Christ, as shown in Matthew 27:51-53 or as reported in Helaman 14:25-26.  

Another reason is for those who are raised up to be called to do specific work in the restoration, where physical resurrected beings are needed, for the restoration of the priesthood and to restore the keys for various things. Individuals such as John the Baptist, Peter and James, Moses, Moroni, and others may be in this category.

What happened to them?  They were taken to heaven by God, to be used in the work of God as may be needed from time to time.

Where do you come up with a "select few" from the "many" that were mentioned in Matthew 27:51-53, 
3 Nephi 23:9-10, and supposedly among all the scattered tribes (3 Nephi 16:1-3) at the time of the 
earthquake around Christ's death.

What did they do in their lifetime until 1830?  You seem to think they were all taken back to 
heaven but you didn't provide a scripture or church teaching.

“There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones” (Doctrine and Covenants 129:1).

They were a “select few” relative to the number of those who will be resurrected to a celestial glory in the morning of the first resurrection.

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

On 9/16/2025 at 11:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Sun, moon, and stars.  I count three comparisons of glory there, don’t you?  And “so also is the resurrection from the dead”, Paul says.  I take it to mean exactly that.

Notice that those three glories are all heavenly, and are separate from the earthly comparison that Paul makes in relation to mortality and immortality in the verses that follow.

The earth is terrestrial.  In the earth, there are plants, animals, and humans.  Their glories 
are different but they are still all terrestrial.

Likewise for the Sun, moon, and stars. They are celestial objects. The planets are celestial 
objects.  Some planets even have their own moons.  The Sun is one of the smallest stars as our 
telescopes show. Betelgeuse and Antares are hundreds of times larger than the Sun.

All the celestial objects have a celestial glory even though there are billions+ more of them.

Except that’s not how Paul was using the sun, moon, and stars.  He was comparing the relative glory between the sun, moon, and stars, as to how it will be with us and the resurrection of the dead.  

“There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:41–42).

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

On 9/16/2025 at 11:23 PM, InCognitus said:

A “spiritual body” is one that is made alive by the spirit, which is completely different than spirit beings in the premortal life.

What kind of body do pre-mortal spirits have?

What kind of body did the premortal Jesus have?   Same as him.

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

On 9/16/2025 at 11:23 PM, InCognitus said:

 Jesus is a perfect example of this.  He existed prior to coming to this earth as a spirit, he was born of Mary into mortality, and he died and was resurrected on the third day with a physical, tangible body of flesh and bones as he explained in Luke 24:39.  So from a physical body point of view, Jesus first attained a “natural body” when he was born of Mary, and he attained a “spiritual body” when he was resurrected, even though he had existed as a spirit being prior to being born of Mary. Do you think Jesus got it in reverse too?

That scripture (first natural, then spiritual) is a reference to the beings created by God on 
earth.

That scripture (first natural, then spiritual) is relative to our position here now on earth as compared to how it will be in the resurrection.  Jesus went through the same process.  He first obtained a mortal body, and when he was resurrected his body was transformed from a natural body into an immortal (spiritual) body.  It has no bearing on the fact that he was once a spirit before being born into mortality.

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

The idea that we lived with our heavenly parents in some celestial home after intelligences 
somehow became children of at least one heavenly mother is peculiar to the LDS faith.

At least in modern times, yes.

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

On 9/16/2025 at 11:23 PM, InCognitus said:

You realize that “firstborn” and “first begotten” are singular nouns and “firstfruits” is plural, don’t you?

Jesus is THE “firstfruits” of them that slept (the first of the firstfruits), but there are clearly other “firstfruits” of the resurrection.

Funny. You have no problem assigning firstborn to all worthy males in Ephraim's lineage and 
associating the priesthood with all of them.

Ephraim (the person) was the (singular) firstborn of the children of Jacob, but his father (Jacob) blessed Ephraim and his posterity with the rights of the firstborn inheritance, so the blessings of the firstborn were passed to his tribe because Ephraim (the person) was designated as the firstborn.  And I didn’t assign it that, Jacob did when he blessed Ephraim and promised the blessings of the firstborn to his tribe.

This is like the blessing that Jacob gave to his son Judah in Genesis 49:8-12, where Judah was given the scepter promises, which were obviously not intended only for Judah personally, but it was to the entire tribe of Judah that through his posterity they would have rule over the kingdom in king David and later in the ultimate king, the Messiah.

And in Genesis 49:22-26, Jacob blessed Joseph to be a “fruitful bough” and says, “The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills”.  Thus, to Joseph was given much more than to any of his progenitors or to any of his brothers (a further indication of the birthright blessing), extending to his entire posterity.

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

You never did explain which of #1, #2, or #3 of the LDS Church's definitions of firstfruits applies 
to terrestrial inhabitants.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/firstfruits?lang=eng

You never did ASK “which of #1, #2, or #3 of the LDS Church’s definitions of firstfruits applies to the terrestrial inhabitants”.  Please show me where you asked anything about the “terrestrial inhabitants”.  The question you asked was, “Please supply one church teaching that says others besides Christ are ‘firstfruits of the Resurrection’ or ‘firstfruits of the dead’.”

But if you are asking that question, the people of the terrestrial kingdom are not the firstfruits.  They are “Christ’s” (along with those of the celestial kingdom), but only those of the celestial kingdom (those that come forth in the morning of the first resurrection) are “firstfruits”.

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

On 9/16/2025 at 11:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Didn’t you just answer your own question using Doctrine and Covenants 88:98?

Based on what I provided earlier of the LDS Church's definition of firstfruits, Doctrine and 
Covenants 88:98 is not pointing to the terrestrials.

Your question had nothing to do with those of the terrestrial kingdom (not that I can find, anyway).

Your question was simply this: “Please supply one church teaching that says others besides Christ are ‘firstfruits of the Resurrection’ or ‘firstfruits of the dead’.”

And Doctrine and Covenants 88:98 addresses that question.  

The people of the celestial kingdom come forth in the morning of the first resurrection and they “are Christ’s, the first fruits, they who shall descend with him first, and they who are on the earth and in their graves, who are first caught up to meet him; and all this by the voice of the sounding of the trump of the angel of God.”  (Doctrine and Covenants 88:98)

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

On 9/16/2025 at 11:23 PM, InCognitus said:

If that isn’t enough, see Book of Mormon Seminary Student Manual (2024):

“What is the First Resurrection?  Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught:

“Those coming forth in the morning of this resurrection do so with celestial bodies and shall inherit a celestial glory; these are they who are Christ’s the firstfruits. Those coming forth in the afternoon of this resurrection do so with terrestrial bodies and consequently shall inherit that kingdom; they are described as being Christ’s at this coming. All who have been resurrected so far have received celestial bodies; the coming forth of terrestrial beings does not commence until after the Second Coming. (Doctrine and Covenants 76:50–80; 88:95–99.) (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary [1965], 1:196)”

See also Doctrines of the Gospel Teacher Manual, Chapter 32: The Resurrection and Judgement.

As mentioned earlier, the LDS Church's use of Doctrine and Covenants 88:98 to define firstfruits 
does not match the qualifications of the terrestrials.  They had not endured to the end.  Verse 98 
is not even speaking of them.

Of course not, Doctrine and covenants 88:98 is talking about those in the celestial kingdom.  Where did you ask anything about those of the terrestrial kingdom?

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

You can point to previous teachings of Elder McConkie and agree with them and then seemingly reject 
or disavow those from other leaders you don't agree with. I'll provide a lot more when I reply to 
your parts 1 and 2 from our much larger topic of "Ephraim, the birthright, and the gathering".

You asked for a reference from a “church teaching”.  I provided one from a current church manual.  Just because the manual quotes one thing or another from Elder McConkie it doesn’t mean that everything Elder McConkie ever wrote in his lifetime is accurate.  That’s ridiculous.

Other church manuals containing church teachings have quoted C. S. Lewis (see here for example).  Does that mean C. S. Lewis taught everything correctly about church teachings?

Also, in your preparation for your response in the other folder, keep in mind that I asked where the LDS Church teaches those specific things that you were saying, in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals.  If it doesn’t fall into those three categories, it won’t work.  See more below.

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

You can point to previous teachings of Elder McConkie and agree with them and then seemingly reject 
or disavow those from other leaders you don't agree with. I'll provide a lot more when I reply to 
your parts 1 and 2 from our much larger topic of "Ephraim, the birthright, and the gathering".

Chapter 32 of "Doctrines of the Gospel, Teacher's Manual" quotes a teaching by Joseph Fielding 
Smith in PreTest Answer #3 and mentions one of his compositions, "Doctrines of Salvation".  You 
should read the 3-volume set.  I wonder how much of it you would view as false and misleading or 
true and edifying.

https://ia801806.us.archive.org/8/items/JFSDoctrinesOfSalvation/JFSDoctrinesofSalvationv1-3.pdf

The Way to Perfection is another great resource for the theology of the early LDS Church.

https://dn720005.ca.archive.org/0/items/waytoperfections00smit/waytoperfections00smit.pdf

I have both books and I am familiar with them.  But, as mentioned above, just because such books are quoted in a church manual, it doesn’t mean that anything and everything written in those books or by that author are church doctrines.

Keep in mind the way that the church itself defines how official doctrine is determined.

From the Church Newsroom on 05/04/2007, Approaching Latter-day Saint Doctrine: 

“Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.”

In an October 2012 General Conference address, Elder Neil L. Andresen stated, “There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.”

If the quotes you find don’t fit those guidelines, then it’s not official church doctrine.

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

There is no morning and afternoon of the first resurrection in scripture.

Not by that name, no.  But Joseph Smith spoke about it as the morning of the resurrection, so that’s where we get the terminology from.  But the doctrine comes from Doctrine and Covenants 88:96-102 as I have already explained.

Here’s a diagram:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/imgs/0d3c85f2f1b51bbe06003f86ed6e49de6ebbecfb/full/!1600%2C/0/default

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

By the way, all those 
in the first resurrection are priests and kings unto God (Revelation 20:6) but you want to lump 
terrestrials among those in the first resurrection.

By the way, I already explained this (no surprise) in my post on 06/02/2025, and also at the end of my post on 05/20/2025.

Yes, those in the first resurrection are priests and kings unto God.  Those of the terrestrial kingdom don’t come forth in the very first of the resurrection, they are resurrected second, but prior to the millennial reign of Christ on the earth.  And the book of Revelation is describing the extremes, much like Jesus talking about the sheep and the goats, those on the right hand or the left hand.  It’s a way of describing the full extent of God’s doings. 

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

On 9/16/2025 at 11:23 PM, InCognitus said:

You will never get things to work out if you start counting trumps out of context.  Trumps and trumpets are mentioned all throughout the Bible and all the scriptures, and they indicate different things in different contexts (for example, the seven trumpets of Revelation chapter 8).  

In most cases only the extremes are discussed throughout the scriptures, the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15), the resurrection of life or the resurrection of damnation (John 5:29), or those who awake to everlasting life and others to everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2).  Mosiah is just doing more of the same, with the “second trump” representing those who come forth in the end.

Don't forget that for many a resurrection of life will also be a resurrection of damnation - for 
all those who fail to return to live with Heavenly Father.

Isn’t that exactly what I said last time?  “In most cases only the extremes are discussed throughout the scriptures, the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15), the resurrection of life or the resurrection of damnation (John 5:29), or those who awake to everlasting life and others to everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2).  Mosiah is just doing more of the same, with the ‘second trump’ representing those who come forth in the end.”

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

Maybe you can elaborate which of the first, second, and third trumps (of Doctrine and Covenants 
88:98-100) correspond to the celestials, terrestrials, and telestials and identify those who, as 
you said, "come forth in the end".

I already did this in great detail earlier in the thread way back in May.  See the end of my post on 05/20/2025.

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

Please explain the context of the second trump of Mosiah 26 and how it is different from the three 
trumps of Doctrine and Covenants 88.

See above.

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

On 9/16/2025 at 11:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Where do you see non-covenant sons inheriting the earth?   “The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.” (Psalms 37:29)

The non-covenant sons have no inheritance.

Ok.  So your terrestrials and telestials are sent somewhere else, not to any other earth where 
the covenant sons are inheriting in their respective sphere.  Maybe they are sent to the moons 
of planets.

After the millennium and final judgement, this earth will be celestialized, and the righteous will inherit the earth.  But the terrestrial and terrestrial individuals will go to some other undetermined place. 

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

On 9/16/2025 at 11:23 PM, InCognitus said:

I don’t see the word “only” in verse 15, do you?  According to Jesus he is the Father of all but we must behave like him so that we “may be” his children (Matthew 5:45).  And, “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven” (Matthew 6:9).

This reminds me of a Star Trek movie.  The younger Spock calls "Father" as he faces the back of 
the older Spock.  The older Spock responds by saying, "I am not our Father".

Jesus is not our Heavenly Father but I understand this is what Mosiah teaches

"And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the 
flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—The Father, because he was conceived 
by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son".

Jesus is not the Son because of the flesh; he is the Son before the incarnation.

Jesus is not the Father because he was conceived by Heavenly Father or a heavenly mother.

In that prayer "Our Father …", Jesus is not referring to himself. "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me 
not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend 
unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God" (John 20:17).

But none of the above has anything to do with my comments on Matthew 5:45 and Matthew 6:9, where Jesus is showing that God is the Father of everyone, but there are things that we must do so that we “may be” his children in a behavioral or covenantal sense of the word.  This disproves your assertion that "Only those in the adoption class are entitled to call God their Heavenly Father."

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

On 9/16/2025 at 11:23 PM, InCognitus said:

You keep avoiding what Paul was teaching in Acts 17:28-29 for some reason. 

What did Paul mean when he taught that we are all the same kind of being as God, his offspring?  You posted a modern Christian commentary, but it just made things worse and didn’t even address the meaning of the Greek word génos.  Do you believe what Paul taught, that we are all the same kind of being as God, his offspring?  Or do you reject that teaching?

I didn't have anything else to offer beside what I wrote earlier.

I understand why.  What else can you say without further contradicting what Paul clearly taught, and without further compromising modern Christian teachings?  The commentaries you posted already did a good job of doing that.

Why can't you just believe what Paul taught?

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

On 9/16/2025 at 11:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Remember, it was you that 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.”  Is this true or false?

How would Paul’s audience have understood what Paul taught about the Christian God, that we are all the offspring of God?  They obviously understood his logic, because many of them pondered his meaning and some rejected their idols and joined the Christian church that day because of Paul’s teachings.  How do you think they understood Paul?

Same comment as above.  But they did not understand Paul as teaching there was one or more heavenly 
mothers.  Unless you believe Heavenly Mother is really the Queen of Heaven of the Old Testament.

Okay…. So you stand by what 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.”  But the pagans didn’t understand Paul to be teaching there is a heavenly mother?  Please explain how they would have understood “offspring in the sexual case of literal reproduction… like that which occurs between male and female” without having a female?

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

On 9/16/2025 at 11:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Only three of Adam’s children are ever named in the Bible (Abel, Cain, and Seth), so does naming only three of Adam’s “many children” mean something deeper for those three?

And in Genesis 5:3, where Seth is mentioned, it is the only place where a genealogy is given from Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, and so on, comparing God making Adam in his own image and likeness (in verse 1) to Adam begetting a son in his own image and likeness (in verse 3), perpetuating the image and likeness of God from Adam on down.  

So, pointing out that Adam begat Seth in his own likeness and after his image doesn’t seem like Seth is being singled out as special here, as it is part of the narrative context for establishing the fact that men perpetuate the image and likeness of God.

Do you think “image” and “likeness” means something deeper in this verse below?

I think it means Seth was more like Adam than any of Adam's sons.  In similar fashion, Adam and 
Eve were more like God than their descendants.

What do you think “image” and “likeness” means in this verse?:  “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4).  How is it the same or different from Genesis 1:26 and 5:3?

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

On 9/16/2025 at 11:23 PM, InCognitus said:

What part of 1 Peter 3:18-20 refers to “all the unsaved who perished in the flood”? 

The verse simply says that Christ “went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water”. 

It doesn’t say anything about ‘all the unsaved” that I can find in those verses.

Only eight were saved. The others were unsaved (not saved). This is because the world was corrupt 
and filled with violence. 

Your assertion was that 1 Peter 3:18-20 refers to “all the unsaved who perished in the flood”, but those verses also say that Jesus went and preached “to the spirits in prison”.  Where does it say that Jesus preached to “all the unsaved” at that time?

On 9/26/2025 at 11:28 AM, theplains said:

It seems you exclude violent and corrupt people from those verses in 1 Peter 3 and only focus on 
the "disobedience" part.  

But that qualifier is found in Doctrine and Covenants 138:28 ("And as I wondered, my eyes were 
opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the 
wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them").  

According to this D&C passage, Jesus did not go to the wicked AND to the disobedient. But 1 Peter 
3:18-20 says he did go to the disobedient.  

I'm not sure why Doctrine and Covenants 138 would differentiate between wicked and disobedient. 
The disobedient are viewed as wicked when you really think about it.  Wickedness is corruptness. 
They are the opposite of holiness.

Maybe you want to try and rationalize Doctrine and Covenants 138:28 and believe those who perished 
in the flood were disobedient but not wicked or not corrupt.

The point is that Jesus only went to preach to a portion of those who died in the flood, and he prepared a way for all the others to be taught the gospel through the missionary work that he organized in the spirit world.  That much is clearly detailed in the Doctrine and Covenants as already discussed.

[theplains]

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

“There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones” (Doctrine and Covenants 129:1).

The second type is mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants 129:3 ("the spirits of just men 
made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory").

Which type were you when you believe you lived as an eternal intelligence or when you 
became a child of heavenly parents and lived with them in heaven?

What type are seraphim and cherubim?
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

They were a “select few” relative to the number of those who will be resurrected to a celestial glory in the morning of the first resurrection.

Where do you come up with a "select few" from the "many" that were resurrected in Matthew 
27:51-53, 3 Nephi 23:9-10, and supposedly among all the scattered tribes (3 Nephi 16:1-3) 
at the time of the earthquake around Christ's death? 

Several LDS leaders have taught the morning of the first resurrection is still occurring. 
See below. This would contradict Doctrine and Covenants 138:57. A resurrection of elders 
is not mentioned there.
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

Except that’s not how Paul was using the sun, moon, and stars.  He was comparing the relative glory between the sun, moon, and stars, as to how it will be with us and the resurrection of the dead.  

“There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:41–42).

Paul mentions only two bodies.

"There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial 
is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another" (1 Corithians 15:40).

Paul mentions the earthly and the heavenly.

"As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are 
they also that are heavenly" (1 Corinthians 14:48).

The sun, moon, and stars are the heavenly ones.  They are the celestial objects.  The 
earth is terrestrial.

The word "celestial" comes from the Latin word caelestis, which means "heavenly" or "of 
the sky."

The word "terrestrial" comes from the Latin word terrestris, meaning "of the earth" or 
"earthly."  Here's the etymology in more detail:  Latin terra = earth, land, or ground. 
Terrestris is derived from terra, meaning "of the earth", "on land", or "earthly".

We don't hear about "telestial" until Joseph Smith mentions it in Doctrine and Covenants, 
but he errs in several ways.

In verse 78, the moon is assigned a terrestrial (earthly) body instead of a celestial 
(heavenly) body.

In verse 81, he regards the stars as telestial bodies with a glory lesser than the Moon. 
He leaves the Earth (terra, terrestrial in Paul's teaching) without a glory.

I can understand his errors as he was only considering the brightness of the Moon as 
it appears in our sky and does not take into account that many stars (heavenly bodies) 
have a glory even greater than our Sun (a celestial body).  And many planets (which he 
doesn't assign a glory to) are larger than the Moon.
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

What kind of body did the premortal Jesus have?   Same as him.

I'm assuming the LDS Jesus, like you, had a spirit body with arms, legs, a head, etc, 
but it wasn't flesh and bone.  Or maybe it was?
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

That scripture (first natural, then spiritual) is relative to our position here now on earth as compared to how it will be in the resurrection.  Jesus went through the same process.  He first obtained a mortal body, and when he was resurrected his body was transformed from a natural body into an immortal (spiritual) body.  It has no bearing on the fact that he was once a spirit before being born into mortality.

What kind of body did Jesus have before he first obtained a mortal body?  A body of 
flesh and bone, arms, legs, head, etc to resemble his Father?
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

Ephraim (the person) was the (singular) firstborn of the children of Jacob, but his father (Jacob) blessed Ephraim and his posterity with the rights of the firstborn inheritance, so the blessings of the firstborn were passed to his tribe because Ephraim (the person) was designated as the firstborn.  And I didn’t assign it that, Jacob did when he blessed Ephraim and promised the blessings of the firstborn to his tribe.

This is like the blessing that Jacob gave to his son Judah in Genesis 49:8-12, where Judah was given the scepter promises, which were obviously not intended only for Judah personally, but it was to the entire tribe of Judah that through his posterity they would have rule over the kingdom in king David and later in the ultimate king, the Messiah.

And in Genesis 49:22-26, Jacob blessed Joseph to be a “fruitful bough” and says, “The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills”.  Thus, to Joseph was given much more than to any of his progenitors or to any of his brothers (a further indication of the birthright blessing), extending to his entire posterity.

Yes. We discussed this before. 

There is nothing that says Jacob blessed Ephraim with the birthright or priesthood over 
his entire family.  The word "birthright" or "priesthood" is not even there. 

Yes, Jacob blesses Joseph's sons and gives Ephraim a blessing greater than Manasseh even 
though the latter is the firstborn.  But Manasseh remains the firstborn for his respective 
family however.  He even gains a greater land inheritance than Ephraim.  

Genesis 49:26 says, "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of 
my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the 
head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren".

But these blessings of Jacob that prevailed above the blessings of his progenitors had 
nothing to do with land in the United States.

You still never show that priesthood comes with the birthright blessing to the entire 
lineage of Ephraim whether they are first born, second born, or third born.  Reuben 
had the birthright of the first born but he had no priesthood. Levi would have the 
priesthood but he did not have the birthright of the first born.  Ephraim would have 
the birthright even though he was the second born, and he wouldn't have the priesthood.

Also, you never explain when you believe Ephraim or his descendants first exercise any 
type of priesthood.

From what I know, Jeroboam (the son of Nebat, an Ephraimite) established pagan places 
of worship in Bethel and Dan, where he set up golden calves to prevent the people from 
going to Jerusalem in the southern kingdom to worship. This act led to idolatry and was 
condemned by prophets of the time.

1 Kings 12:31 says of Jeroboam, "And he made an house of high places, and made priests 
of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi".

I'll speculate he organized some Ephraimite priests in this false worship.
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

But if you are asking that question, the people of the terrestrial kingdom are not the firstfruits.  They are “Christ’s” (along with those of the celestial kingdom), but only those of the celestial kingdom (those that come forth in the morning of the first resurrection) are “firstfruits”.

You'll discover later that those coming forth in the morning of the first resurrection 
do not include those destined for the two lower divisions of the celestial kingdom.  
These two groups had not endured to the end to inherit eternal life. They are not the 
firstfruits according to several teachings I'll provide below.
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

The people of the celestial kingdom come forth in the morning of the first resurrection and they “are Christ’s, the first fruits, they who shall descend with him first, and they who are on the earth and in their graves, who are first caught up to meet him; and all this by the voice of the sounding of the trump of the angel of God.”  (Doctrine and Covenants 88:98)

Only those in the highest division of the celestial kingdom are shown as coming forth 
in the morning of the first resurrection. I'll show this below using LDS Church teachings.
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

Also, in your preparation for your response in the other folder, keep in mind that I asked where the LDS Church teaches those specific things that you were saying, in scripture, official doctrinal statements, and official curriculum manuals.  If it doesn’t fall into those three categories, it won’t work.  See more below.

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

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

Put simply, doctrines are just faith-based beliefs that are spoken or printed without 
the caveat of them just being opinions or speculations. So, I would consider Gospel 
Principles, Gospel Truth volumes 1 and 2, The Way to Perfection, Doctrines of Salvation, 
Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, The Family – Proclamation to the World, Achieving 
A Celestial Marriage , Answers to Gospel Questions, General Conference talks, the Journal 
of Discourses, etc, etc, as LDS doctrine.

They are either true and edifying or false and misleading.
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

I have both books and I am familiar with them.  But, as mentioned above, just because such books are quoted in a church manual, it doesn’t mean that anything and everything written in those books or by that author are church doctrines.

Doctrines = creeds = teachings = gospel principles = gospel fundamentals.

Unless you believe that lies and false doctrines are contained in books entitled "Gospel 
Truth", "Gospel Principles", "Doctrines of the Gospel" etc.
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

Keep in mind the way that the church itself defines how official doctrine is determined.

From the Church Newsroom on 05/04/2007, Approaching Latter-day Saint Doctrine: 

“Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.”

In an October 2012 General Conference address, Elder Neil L. Andresen stated, “There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.”

If the quotes you find don’t fit those guidelines, then it’s not official church doctrine.

It's not difficult for me to find LDS doctrines in LDS books like "Religion 430-431 - 
Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual", "Doctrines of Salvation", "Gospel Principles",
"Gospel Fundamentals", etc.

Maybe there are two camps: official (canonized) and unofficial church doctrine (teachings
of church leaders). Both true in the LDS camp, right?

I'll restate what Boyd K. Packer once said – "It isn't a question of who said it or when; 
the question is whether it is true".

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

If true, it edifies. If false, it misleads. 
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, those in the first resurrection are priests and kings unto God.  Those of the terrestrial kingdom don’t come forth in the very first of the resurrection, they are resurrected second, but prior to the millennial reign of Christ on the earth. 

Those in the first resurrection shall be priests of God and of Christ. Those in the 
second resurrection are harmed by the second death (Revelation 20:4-6).

According to what it seems you believe, the very first of the resurrection would then 
be the gods (the priests and kings unto God). This I believe you also refer to as the 
morning of the first resurrection. Being resurrected second would then mean being in 
the afternoon of the first resurrection.

Bruce R. McConkie taught the afternoon of the first resurrection doesn't begin until 
after the Millennium ends. The resurrection of the just is still in progress right now 
for those destined for eternal life (Godhood).  

"The first resurrection, the resurrection of the just, which is now in progress, began 
with the coming forth of Christ, our Lord, and of certain saints immediately following 
his resurrection (Matt. 27:52-53.) Those coming forth in this resurrection shall come 
forth to an inheritance of eternal life. This resurrection includes all the celestial 
and terrestrial beings from Adam to the Millennium. ... Those coming forth in the 
morning of this resurrection shall be the righteous, the saints of the Most High, those 
who have lived according to the celestial law. The afternoon of the first resurrection 
will not begin until the end of the millennium. Then the unrepentant heathen, the 
honorable men of the earth, who have been deceived by the craftiness of men, and who 
have not received the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it, shall 
come forth." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 640-641)

He also taught the resurrected beings living on earth at the time (those who will become 
Gods) would be caught up to meet the Lord at his Second Coming:

What is meant by the phrase "morning of the first resurrection"? One of the blessings 
pronounced upon those who are sealed in the temple for time and all eternity is the 
power to come forth "in the morning of the first resurrection." Elder McConkie explained: 
"Those being resurrected with celestial bodies, whose destiny is to inherit a celestial 
kingdom, will come forth in the morning of the first resurrection. Their graves shall 
be opened and they shall be caught up to meet the Lord at his Second Coming. They are 
Christ's, the firstfruits, and they shall descend with him to reign as kings and priests 
during the millennial era." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 640.)

Later another trump will sound (see D&C 88:99): "This is the afternoon of the first 
resurrection; it takes place after our Lord has ushered in the millennium. Those coming 
forth at that time do so with terrestrial bodies and are thus destined to inherit a 
terrestrial glory in eternity." (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 640.)

Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel - Teachers Manual - 2000

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel/chapter-32?lang=eng

The initial part of the morning of the first resurrection would then correspond to those 
raised to Godhood (eternal life) in Doctrine and Covenants 138:12-17,51 (around Christ's 
resurrection).

This also matches the LDS Church defines the firstfruits:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/firstfruits?lang=eng

Those who accept the gospel and endure to the end in faithfulness are in a symbolic way 
the firstfruits, for they belong to God.

They who shall first descend with Christ are the firstfruits, D&C 88:98 (I would add 
96-98).  This is the first trump.

These are the Gods when you consider the seminary's teaching mention of Bruce R. McConkie. 
These Gods are members of the Church of the Firstborn (D&C 76:52-60).  They had endured 
to the end.

Joseph Fielding Smith also taught we are still in the morning of the first resurrection. 
It is only for those who will reign. The morning of the first resurrection extends until 
the end of the Millennial reign. The first resurrection is for those who will reign.

"The righteous are those who shall be called forth in the morning of the first 
resurrection. They are Christ's, the first fruits, and it is these who shall have part 
in the resurrection of the just. ... The morning of the first resurrection is that 
period which includes the resurrection of our Lord and of those who were with him when 
he came forth from the grave and extends down to and includes the coming of our Lord 
to reign upon the earth a thousand years. This is the first resurrection, and after 
this will come the second resurrection, or the final resurrection, which will take place 
after the millennium" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 2:295-297).

He doesn't teach about a third and fourth resurrection.

"Those who were with him when he came forth from the grave" corresponds to those raised 
to Godhood (eternal life) in Doctrine and Covenants 138:12-17,51 (the first trump; 
D&C 88:98).

I see no resurrection for those in the two lower divisions of the celestial kingdom 
happening in the morning of the first resurrection as they do not reign as priests and 
kings.

But let me know if you see otherwise for these two lesser groups and where.
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

Isn’t that exactly what I said last time?  “In most cases only the extremes are discussed throughout the scriptures, the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15), the resurrection of life or the resurrection of damnation (John 5:29), or those who awake to everlasting life and others to everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2).  Mosiah is just doing more of the same, with the ‘second trump’ representing those who come forth in the end.”

Some examples of this damnation in the LDS case is a lack of eternal increase and not 
returning to live with Heavenly Father.
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

I already did this in great detail earlier in the thread way back in May.  See the end of my post on 05/20/2025.

I checked that post.

You said the second trump is for the terrestrials.  The third trump is for the telestials.

But it doesn't align with the way Mosiah speaks about the second trump. You said, 
"Mosiah is just doing more of the same, with the ‘second trump' representing those who 
come forth in the end."

But those who come forth in the end is the fourth trump. You identified them as the sons 
of perdition in that post mentioned above.
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

After the millennium and final judgement, this earth will be celestialized, and the righteous will inherit the earth.  But the terrestrial and terrestrial individuals will go to some other undetermined place. 

Maybe the terrestials will go to the moon, believed to have a terrestrial glory.

I believe all saved Christians will be in God’s kingdom.

"He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of 
his beloved Son" (Colossians 1:13).
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

But none of the above has anything to do with my comments on Matthew 5:45 and Matthew 6:9, where Jesus is showing that God is the Father of everyone, but there are things that we must do so that we “may be” his children in a behavioral or covenantal sense of the word.  This disproves your assertion that "Only those in the adoption class are entitled to call God their Heavenly Father."

Those in the two lower divisions of the celestial kingdom did not do all they were 
commanded to do (they fell short) so they did not become children of the covenant.
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

Okay…. So you stand by what 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.”  But the pagans didn’t understand Paul to be teaching there is a heavenly mother?  Please explain how they would have understood “offspring in the sexual case of literal reproduction… like that which occurs between male and female” without having a female?

In my January 2 post, I said "I think he is referring to us being offspring in a spiritual 
sense, of a living God and his argument is their use of statues in their worship, which 
cannot talk, see, or hear. The pagans understood "offspring" in the sexual case of 
literal reproduction for the Greek gods; like that which occurs between male and female.  

While Paul uses the term, he is not inferring the involvement of a heavenly mother or 
any type of procreation of a celestial nature".

The Greek gods were pagan.  Paul was not saying that one of these pagan gods was Heavenly
Father and another was Heavenly Mother, or that God was married and having children in
some celestial environment.
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

What do you think “image” and “likeness” means in this verse?:  “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4). 

That's about making an idol to worship.
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

How is it the same or different from Genesis 1:26 and 5:3?

I think the latter means Seth reflected the image of Adam more than any of his [Adam's] 
children.
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

Your assertion was that 1 Peter 3:18-20 refers to “all the unsaved who perished in the flood”, but those verses also say that Jesus went and preached “to the spirits in prison”.  Where does it say that Jesus preached to “all the unsaved” at that time?

I didn't see any exclusion from the unsaved that perished in the flood. Only eight were saved.
 

On 9/28/2025 at 7:15 PM, InCognitus said:

The point is that Jesus only went to preach to a portion of those who died in the flood, and he prepared a way for all the others to be taught the gospel through the missionary work that he organized in the spirit world.  That much is clearly detailed in the Doctrine and Covenants as already discussed.

What portion of those who died in the flood – the saved or the unsaved?

Doctrine and Covenants 138:28 says, "And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my 
understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the 
wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them").  

According to this D&C passage, Jesus did not go to the wicked AND to the disobedient. 
But 1 Peter 3:18-20 says he did go to the disobedient.

[InCognitus]

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

On 9/28/2025 at 5:15 PM, InCognitus said:

“There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones” (Doctrine and Covenants 129:1).

The second type is mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants 129:3 ("the spirits of just men 
made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory").

Which type were you when you believe you lived as an eternal intelligence or when you 
became a child of heavenly parents and lived with them in heaven?

What type are seraphim and cherubim?

You’re repeating yourself again. See our prior discussion on this topic in my post on May 10, 2025.

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

On 9/28/2025 at 5:15 PM, InCognitus said:

They were a “select few” relative to the number of those who will be resurrected to a celestial glory in the morning of the first resurrection.

Where do you come up with a "select few" from the "many" that were resurrected in Matthew 
27:51-53, 3 Nephi 23:9-10, and supposedly among all the scattered tribes (3 Nephi 16:1-3) 
at the time of the earthquake around Christ's death? 

I already answered this exact same question in my last post.  Why do you ignore my answer and ask the same question again?

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

On 9/28/2025 at 5:15 PM, InCognitus said:

Except that’s not how Paul was using the sun, moon, and stars.  He was comparing the relative glory between the sun, moon, and stars, as to how it will be with us and the resurrection of the dead.  

“There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:41–42).

Paul mentions only two bodies.

But he mentions three “glories”. 

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

"There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial 
is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another" (1 Corithians 15:40).

Paul mentions the earthly and the heavenly.

And the “heavenly” consists of three glories, compared to the apparent differences in glory between the sun, the moon, and the stars.

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

"As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are 
they also that are heavenly" (1 Corinthians 14:48).

The sun, moon, and stars are the heavenly ones.  They are the celestial objects.  The 
earth is terrestrial.

The word "celestial" comes from the Latin word caelestis, which means "heavenly" or "of 
the sky."

The word "terrestrial" comes from the Latin word terrestris, meaning "of the earth" or 
"earthly."  Here's the etymology in more detail:  Latin terra = earth, land, or ground. 
Terrestris is derived from terra, meaning "of the earth", "on land", or "earthly".

We don't hear about "telestial" until Joseph Smith mentions it in Doctrine and Covenants, 
but he errs in several ways.

In verse 78, the moon is assigned a terrestrial (earthly) body instead of a celestial 
(heavenly) body.

In verse 81, he regards the stars as telestial bodies with a glory lesser than the Moon. 
He leaves the Earth (terra, terrestrial in Paul's teaching) without a glory.

I can understand his errors as he was only considering the brightness of the Moon as 
it appears in our sky and does not take into account that many stars (heavenly bodies) 
have a glory even greater than our Sun (a celestial body).  And many planets (which he 
doesn't assign a glory to) are larger than the Moon.

If you want to break down word meaning, see this thread from 2012.  (Or, you could also look up this Christian gospel singing group called "The Telestials".  Figure that one out).

And I already addressed your absurd criticism of using a scientific application of the difference between sun, moon, and stars in my post on 08/17/2025, where I said, “The description of the varying degrees of glory of the sun, moon, and stars have to do with how they appear to us ‘in the firmament’ (76:70, 71, 81).  And Paul’s comparison of the degrees of glory in 1 Corinthians 15:41 should be understood in the same context.”

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

On 9/28/2025 at 5:15 PM, InCognitus said:

That scripture (first natural, then spiritual) is relative to our position here now on earth as compared to how it will be in the resurrection.  Jesus went through the same process.  He first obtained a mortal body, and when he was resurrected his body was transformed from a natural body into an immortal (spiritual) body.  It has no bearing on the fact that he was once a spirit before being born into mortality.

What kind of body did Jesus have before he first obtained a mortal body?  A body of 
flesh and bone, arms, legs, head, etc to resemble his Father?

You already know the answer to that question.

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

On 9/28/2025 at 5:15 PM, InCognitus said:

Ephraim (the person) was the (singular) firstborn of the children of Jacob, but his father (Jacob) blessed Ephraim and his posterity with the rights of the firstborn inheritance, so the blessings of the firstborn were passed to his tribe because Ephraim (the person) was designated as the firstborn.  And I didn’t assign it that, Jacob did when he blessed Ephraim and promised the blessings of the firstborn to his tribe.

This is like the blessing that Jacob gave to his son Judah in Genesis 49:8-12, where Judah was given the scepter promises, which were obviously not intended only for Judah personally, but it was to the entire tribe of Judah that through his posterity they would have rule over the kingdom in king David and later in the ultimate king, the Messiah.

And in Genesis 49:22-26, Jacob blessed Joseph to be a “fruitful bough” and says, “The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills”.  Thus, to Joseph was given much more than to any of his progenitors or to any of his brothers (a further indication of the birthright blessing), extending to his entire posterity.

Yes. We discussed this before. 

There is nothing that says Jacob blessed Ephraim with the birthright or priesthood over 
his entire family.  The word "birthright" or "priesthood" is not even there. 

Yes, Jacob blesses Joseph's sons and gives Ephraim a blessing greater than Manasseh even 
though the latter is the firstborn.  But Manasseh remains the firstborn for his respective 
family however.  He even gains a greater land inheritance than Ephraim.  

Genesis 49:26 says, "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of 
my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the 
head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren".

You’re spinning around on this again?  We’ve already been over all of this. 

Are you forgetting Genesis 48:15-22, where Jacob blessed Ephraim with the firstborn blessing, by placing his right hand on Ephraim instead of Manasseh? 

And you also seem to still be stuck on the idea that his particular firstborn blessing was limited to his immediate family, when clearly Jacob was blessing each of his sons and their posterity as the tribes of Israel.  This is obviously true given the fact that over 400 years later Moses blessed each tribe again and extended to Joseph blessings that are greater (again) than all the other tribes (Deuteronomy 33:13-17).  If these blessings were intended for the immediate family only, then Judah (the person) should have had rule over his brethren with the scepter promises in his own family only instead of having those blessings pertain to his posterity.

See my posts on 02/25/2024 and 03/03/2024 where I discussed this in detail, and I’m sure there are others.

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

But these blessings of Jacob that prevailed above the blessings of his progenitors had 
nothing to do with land in the United States.

Right, I recall that you believe that when Psalm 37 says to Israel that they shall “inherit the earth”, it excludes the United States somehow.  I still haven’t figured out how “the earth” will exclude the United States in future times.  Can you explain that to me?

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

You still never show that priesthood comes with the birthright blessing to the entire 
lineage of Ephraim whether they are first born, second born, or third born.  Reuben 
had the birthright of the first born but he had no priesthood. Levi would have the 
priesthood but he did not have the birthright of the first born.  Ephraim would have 
the birthright even though he was the second born, and he wouldn't have the priesthood.

Also, you never explain when you believe Ephraim or his descendants first exercise any 
type of priesthood.

I made no claims about Ephraim being given the priesthood as a role of his birthright, only you did this.  I said that all the tribes had a right to the priesthood since they are all the seed of Abraham as I showed in our discussion, but all of them except Levi lost that right temporarily because of their breaking the covenant on Mount Sinai. 

I think you are also somehow misconstruing or confusing the role of the firstborn in the priesthood prior to the law of Moses when the firstborn son had the right to function as the High Priest in sacrificial service, with the idea that “priesthood comes with a birthright blessing”, making it sound as if no one else held the priesthood.  That’s simply not so.

I discussed the role of the firstborn as the High Priest prior to the law of Moses in great detail in my post to you on 03/16/2024.

I also made my position on this topic very clear in that same post where I said, “But I think the real reason that Ephraim is the first to hold the priesthood in the latter-days has more to do with Ephraim's birthright blessing from Moses, saying that Ephraim would be the primary means of gathering Israel by pushing together the people to the ends of the earth (Deut 33:17).  It’s not that Ephraim holds the priesthood by birthright, but that Ephraim was the first to be gathered and recognized in the latter days, and thus received the restored priesthood first.  And Ephraim has a right to the priesthood, not because Ephraim has the right of the first born, but because Ephraim is among the promised seed of Abraham as noted in Abraham 2:9.”

So if you are going to bring up old topics again, at least get it right and engage what was said previously instead of just repeating your original assertions all over again.

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

Put simply, doctrines are just faith-based beliefs that are spoken or printed without 
the caveat of them just being opinions or speculations.

Awesome.  So, the idea that there is a connection between Bill Gates and the mark of the beast really is a doctrine of all Christianity.  Thank you for clearing that up for me.  Also, I’m sorry that your doctrine that the rapture would occur last September 23rd didn’t pan out like people said it would.

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

So, I would consider Gospel 
Principles, Gospel Truth volumes 1 and 2, The Way to Perfection, Doctrines of Salvation, 
Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, The Family – Proclamation to the World, Achieving 
A Celestial Marriage , Answers to Gospel Questions, General Conference talks, the Journal 
of Discourses, etc, etc, as LDS doctrine.

But the CFR was for “official” doctrine of the church, which is very different than the reasoning through various teachings (according to the knowledge they had at the time) or speculative opinions about some of our teachings as can be found among a few of the publications you mention above.  The lesson manuals of the church would be in the classification as “official” teachings, but even they may not always contain what would be considered “official” doctrines.

I can see that you recognized the problem you had in finding anything to support your claims about our doctrines in your post in the other thread, as you tried to get around the request that it be “official” doctrines of the church.  Needless to say, you didn’t fulfill the CFR.  I’ll have a few things to say about that in the other thread.

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

On 9/28/2025 at 5:15 PM, InCognitus said:

I have both books and I am familiar with them.  But, as mentioned above, just because such books are quoted in a church manual, it doesn’t mean that anything and everything written in those books or by that author are church doctrines.

Doctrines = creeds = teachings = gospel principles = gospel fundamentals.

Unless you believe that lies and false doctrines are contained in books entitled "Gospel 
Truth", "Gospel Principles", "Doctrines of the Gospel" etc.

See below.

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

On 9/28/2025 at 5:15 PM, InCognitus said:

Keep in mind the way that the church itself defines how official doctrine is determined.

From the Church Newsroom on 05/04/2007, Approaching Latter-day Saint Doctrine: 

“Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.”

In an October 2012 General Conference address, Elder Neil L. Andresen stated, “There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.”

If the quotes you find don’t fit those guidelines, then it’s not official church doctrine.

It's not difficult for me to find LDS doctrines in LDS books like "Religion 430-431 - 
Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual", "Doctrines of Salvation", "Gospel Principles",
"Gospel Fundamentals", etc.

Well, it must have been difficult (or impossible?) because you didn’t find anything to support your claims using official church sources.

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

Maybe there are two camps: official (canonized) and unofficial church doctrine (teachings
of church leaders). Both true in the LDS camp, right?

I'll restate what Boyd K. Packer once said – "It isn't a question of who said it or when; 
the question is whether it is true".

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

If true, it edifies. If false, it misleads. 

I think it’s quite appropriate that you quote this statement from Boyd K. Packer in this context.  

You seem to be asserting that just because something is written in a book by a former general authority of the church then it must be true and considered church doctrine without question.  In other words, you assert that truth (in this case) is based on who said it, and not whether it is true.  But Elder Packer’s statement implies that each statement be considered on its own merit.

Also, you imply a black and white judgement of anything written that isn’t even suggested by Elder Packer.  There are many revealed truths for which we have limited understanding, and all of us (including you) use our own reasoning to fill in the gaps of understanding, and sometimes that reasoning may be incorrect or even partially true.  And some of it may not even be possible to determine which reasoning is correct until further truths are revealed to us.

Take the modern doctrine of the Trinity as an example.  The doctrine has some revealed biblical basis for truth:  Jesus and his Father are “one” (in some way) and there is one God above all.  But the doctrine goes far beyond what was revealed and tries to define exactly how the Father and Son are “one” in unbiblical ways, and it ignores or reinterprets (in absurd ways) other revealed scripture in the Bible that contradicts the modern idea of the “one God”.  

So, you could ask the question, is the doctrine of the Trinity true or false?  Well, it depends on which aspect of the teaching you are talking about.  It’s not always black and white.  

The same could be said of many statements from past leaders of the church.  They could have been reasoning things out based on an incomplete understanding or lack of knowledge about the accuracy of the sources.  

We see this happening in the New Testament with the Jews trying to reason out what they were taught during Old Testament times with the coming of Jesus as the Messiah.  Some of them had created an expectation about the Messiah in their own minds along with hard set traditions that didn’t fit how things played out in the ministry of Jesus.  But others saw that some of their preconceived ideas were tentative, and they tested and compared the teachings and ministry of Jesus with what was revealed, but most importantly of all, they were open to the promptings of the Spirit.  Consequently, they accepted Jesus as their Messiah, their Redeemer and Savior.

Because of this New Testament example (and others), I prefer to take the same cautious approach to determining our official doctrine as the leaders of the church do today.   We should always go with what has been revealed in scripture and be led by the Spirit, and we should not form hard-set opinions about how to fill in the gaps in between.  As I have said before, at some future day we will all become fully aware of what misconceptions we have had about God and the hereafter, and we should be happy to come to that awareness instead of stubbornly fighting those revealed truths about God that don’t fit our hard-set traditions.  I welcome that day and I hope you do too.

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

On 9/28/2025 at 5:15 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, those in the first resurrection are priests and kings unto God.  Those of the terrestrial kingdom don’t come forth in the very first of the resurrection, they are resurrected second, but prior to the millennial reign of Christ on the earth. 

Those in the first resurrection shall be priests of God and of Christ. Those in the 
second resurrection are harmed by the second death (Revelation 20:4-6).

Remember, as I pointed out before, Revelation 20:4-6 is only talking about the two extremes.  Paul, on the other hand taught that there are several distinct bands or classes of those raised from the dead (“every man in his own order”, 1 Corinthians 15:23), so there are other resurrections going on in between those two extremes.

At the beginning of the first resurrection are those of the celestial kingdom who will be the priests of God and of Christ, and only those at the end of the second resurrection are the “only ones on whom the second death shall have any power”, they are the sons of perdition (Doctrine and Covenants 76:37).  The others who are resurrected in between have different results.  This fits precisely with what John says in Revelation 20:4-6 for the two extremes.

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

According to what it seems you believe, the very first of the resurrection would then 
be the gods (the priests and kings unto God). This I believe you also refer to as the 
morning of the first resurrection. Being resurrected second would then mean being in 
the afternoon of the first resurrection.

Bruce R. McConkie taught the afternoon of the first resurrection doesn't begin until 
after the Millennium ends. The resurrection of the just is still in progress right now 
for those destined for eternal life (Godhood).  

"The first resurrection, the resurrection of the just, which is now in progress, began 
with the coming forth of Christ, our Lord, and of certain saints immediately following 
his resurrection (Matt. 27:52-53.) Those coming forth in this resurrection shall come 
forth to an inheritance of eternal life. This resurrection includes all the celestial 
and terrestrial beings from Adam to the Millennium. ... Those coming forth in the 
morning of this resurrection shall be the righteous, the saints of the Most High, those 
who have lived according to the celestial law. The afternoon of the first resurrection 
will not begin until the end of the millennium. Then the unrepentant heathen, the 
honorable men of the earth, who have been deceived by the craftiness of men, and who 
have not received the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it, shall 
come forth." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 640-641)

Where did you get that so called “quote” from Mormon Doctrine?  Please provide your actual source, or who made it up.

The so called “quote” from Mormon Doctrine you show above (with the bold and underlined portion added by me) doesn’t match any edition of Mormon Doctrine in existence (First Edition 1958, or Second Edition 1966 (current)).  Here’s what Bruce R. McConkie actually wrote in his topic entry on the "Resurrection" on page 640 of the 1966 edition of Mormon Doctrine:

Quote

Though all men are assured of a resurrection, all will not be resurrected at the same time, and there will be varying degrees of glory for immortal persons. All will come forth from the grave, "But every man in his own order" (1 Cor. 15:23), as Paul expresses it. Joseph Smith said: "In the resurrection, some are raised to be angels, others are raised to become gods." (Teachings, p. 312.)

Two great resurrections await the inhabitants of the earth: one is the first resurrection, the resurrection of life, the resurrection of the just; the other is the second resurrection, the resurrection of damnation, the resurrection of the unjust. (John 5:28-29; Rev. 20; D. & C. 76.) But even within these two separate resurrections, there is an order in which the dead will come forth. Those being resurrected with celestial bodies, whose destiny is to inherit a celestial kingdom, will come forth in the morning of the first resurrection. Their graves shall be opened and they shall be caught up to meet the Lord at his Second Coming. They are Christ's, the firstfruits, and they shall descend with him to reign as kings and priests during the millennial era. (D. & C. 29:13; 43:18; 76:50-70; 88:97-98; 1 Thess. 4:16-17; Rev. 20:3-7.)

"And after this another angel shall sound, which is the second trump; and then cometh the redemption of those who are Christ's at his coming; who have received their part in that prison which is prepared for them, that they might receive the gospel, and be judged according to men in the flesh." (D. & C. 88:99.) This is the afternoon of the first resurrection; it takes place after our Lord has ushered in the millennium. Those coming forth at that time do so with terrestrial bodies and are thus destined to inherit a terrestrial glory in eternity. (D. & C. 76:71-80.)

At the end of the millennium, the second resurrection begins. In the forepart of this resurrection of the unjust those destined to come forth will be "the spirits of men who are to be judged, and are found under condemnation; And these are the rest of the dead; and they live not again until the thousand years are ended, neither again, until the end of the earth." (D. & C. 88:100-101.) These are the ones who have earned telestial bodies, who were wicked and carnal in mortality, and who have suffered the wrath of God in hell "until the last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work." (D. & C. 76:85.) Their final destiny is to inherit a telestial glory. (D. & C. 76:81-112.)

Finally, in the latter end of the resurrection of damnation, the sons of perdition, those who "remain filthy still" (D. & C. 88:102), shall come forth from their graves. (2 Ne. 9:14-16.) "Then is the time when their torments shall be as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever; and then is the time that they shall be chained down to an everlasting destruction, according to the power and captivity of Satan, he having subjected them according to his will. Then, I say unto you, they shall be as though there had been no redemption made; for they cannot be redeemed according to God's justice; and they cannot die, seeing there is no more corruption." (Alma 12:17-18.)

(Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Bookcraft 1966 edition, p. 640, emphasis added).

Notice that McConkie does not say anything close to what you claimed.  He says “the afternoon of the first resurrection… takes place after our Lord has ushered in the millennium”, or in other words right at the beginning of the millennium.  He makes this perfectly clear in the next paragraph where he states that the second resurrection does not begin until “the end of the millennium”.

Elsewhere, in his book The Mortal Messiah, Volume 3, p. 453, McConkie states, “A gracious Lord offers to all men all that they are capable of receiving. Even the heathen who are without the law shall come forth in the afternoon of the first resurrection and be blessed with a terrestrial inheritance that shall be tolerable for them”.

Even in your messed up quote it contradicts what you are claiming McConkie taught about those of the terrestrial kingdom.  You said, “The first resurrection, the resurrection of the just, which is now in progress, began with the coming forth of Christ, our Lord, and of certain saints immediately following his resurrection (Matt. 27:52-53.) Those coming forth in this resurrection shall come forth to an inheritance of eternal life. This resurrection includes all the celestial and terrestrial beings from Adam to the Millennium.”

Even the Doctrines of the Gospel Teachers Manual that you reference below backs up the quote from Mormon Doctrine that I provided above.  It says:

“Later another trump will sound (see D&C 88:99): ;This is the afternoon of the first resurrection; it takes place after our Lord has ushered in the millennium. Those coming forth at that time do so with terrestrial bodies and are thus destined to inherit a terrestrial glory in eternity.’ (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 640.)”

You even quote this portion of the manual below.

So where did you find that “quote”?  CFR for the actual source of your quote.

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

He also taught the resurrected beings living on earth at the time (those who will become 
Gods) would be caught up to meet the Lord at his Second Coming:

What is meant by the phrase "morning of the first resurrection"? One of the blessings 
pronounced upon those who are sealed in the temple for time and all eternity is the 
power to come forth "in the morning of the first resurrection." Elder McConkie explained: 
"Those being resurrected with celestial bodies, whose destiny is to inherit a celestial 
kingdom, will come forth in the morning of the first resurrection. Their graves shall 
be opened and they shall be caught up to meet the Lord at his Second Coming. They are 
Christ's, the firstfruits, and they shall descend with him to reign as kings and priests 
during the millennial era." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 640.)

Later another trump will sound (see D&C 88:99): "This is the afternoon of the first 
resurrection; it takes place after our Lord has ushered in the millennium. Those coming 
forth at that time do so with terrestrial bodies and are thus destined to inherit a 
terrestrial glory in eternity." (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 640.)

Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel - Teachers Manual - 2000

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel/chapter-32?lang=eng

See?  Your quote above disputes your other claim about McConkie.  

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

The initial part of the morning of the first resurrection would then correspond to those 
raised to Godhood (eternal life) in Doctrine and Covenants 138:12-17,51 (around Christ's 
resurrection).

This also matches the LDS Church defines the firstfruits:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/firstfruits?lang=eng

Those who accept the gospel and endure to the end in faithfulness are in a symbolic way 
the firstfruits, for they belong to God.

They who shall first descend with Christ are the firstfruits, D&C 88:98 (I would add 
96-98).  This is the first trump.

These are the Gods when you consider the seminary's teaching mention of Bruce R. McConkie. 
These Gods are members of the Church of the Firstborn (D&C 76:52-60).  They had endured 
to the end.

Joseph Fielding Smith also taught we are still in the morning of the first resurrection. 
It is only for those who will reign. The morning of the first resurrection extends until 
the end of the Millennial reign. The first resurrection is for those who will reign.

"The righteous are those who shall be called forth in the morning of the first 
resurrection. They are Christ's, the first fruits, and it is these who shall have part 
in the resurrection of the just. ... The morning of the first resurrection is that 
period which includes the resurrection of our Lord and of those who were with him when 
he came forth from the grave and extends down to and includes the coming of our Lord 
to reign upon the earth a thousand years. This is the first resurrection, and after 
this will come the second resurrection, or the final resurrection, which will take place 
after the millennium" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 2:295-297).

He doesn't teach about a third and fourth resurrection.

That’s because there are really only two divisions of the resurrection, one before and one after the millennium, but as Paul said, it is “every man in his own order”. 

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

On 9/28/2025 at 5:15 PM, InCognitus said:

I already did this in great detail earlier in the thread way back in May.  See the end of my post on 05/20/2025.

I checked that post.

You said the second trump is for the terrestrials.  The third trump is for the telestials.

But it doesn't align with the way Mosiah speaks about the second trump. You said, 
"Mosiah is just doing more of the same, with the ‘second trump' representing those who 
come forth in the end."

But those who come forth in the end is the fourth trump. You identified them as the sons 
of perdition in that post mentioned above.

As I said before (and since you are repeating the same questions again, I will repeat my same answers again): You will never get things to work out if you start counting trumps out of context.  Trumps and trumpets are mentioned all throughout the Bible and all the scriptures, and they indicate different things in different contexts (for example, the seven trumpets of Revelation chapter 8).  

In most cases only the extremes are discussed throughout the scriptures, the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15), the resurrection of life or the resurrection of damnation (John 5:29), or those who awake to everlasting life and others to everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2).  Mosiah is just doing more of the same, with the “second trump” representing those who come forth in the end.

In Mosiah’s context, the “first trump” (not mentioned in the text) would be the very beginning of the first resurrection and the “second trump” would be the end of the second resurrection.  It isn’t about counting exactly how many “trumps” there are, but about the extremes. 

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

On 9/28/2025 at 5:15 PM, InCognitus said:

After the millennium and final judgement, this earth will be celestialized, and the righteous will inherit the earth.  But the terrestrial and terrestrial individuals will go to some other undetermined place. 

Maybe the terrestials will go to the moon, believed to have a terrestrial glory.

I believe all saved Christians will be in God’s kingdom.

"He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of 
his beloved Son" (Colossians 1:13).

So, you don’t believe the verses about the righteous inheriting the earth (with the United States removed from the earth somehow)?

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

On 9/28/2025 at 5:15 PM, InCognitus said:

Okay…. So you stand by what 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.”  But the pagans didn’t understand Paul to be teaching there is a heavenly mother?  Please explain how they would have understood “offspring in the sexual case of literal reproduction… like that which occurs between male and female” without having a female?

In my January 2 post, I said "I think he is referring to us being offspring in a spiritual 
sense, of a living God and his argument is their use of statues in their worship, which 
cannot talk, see, or hear. The pagans understood "offspring" in the sexual case of 
literal reproduction for the Greek gods; like that which occurs between male and female.  

While Paul uses the term, he is not inferring the involvement of a heavenly mother or 
any type of procreation of a celestial nature".

I realize that you deny that Paul used the word “offspring” with the same meaning as his Greek audience would understand him.  According to you, the pagans understood “’offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction… like that which occurs between male and female”, but you assert that Paul didn’t mean it the way that his audience would have understood it, and that “he is not inferring the involvement of a heavenly mother or any type of procreation of a celestial nature”. 

But then why would Paul be so stupid as to pick a word that would set himself up for being misunderstood when he was teaching them about the true God of the Bible?  Furthermore, you have no evidence that he would engage in this duplicitous behavior other than your personal abhorrence for the implications of the true meaning of the word génos, a word that even the commentary you quoted from declined to define.

I don’t believe Paul would subscribe to such duplicitous behavior.  I don’t believe Paul would have lied to or misled his audience in that way.  I believe he was sincerely teaching his audience about the true God of the Bible and not pulling a bait and switch scam on them.

I believe what the Bible says.  I believe those verses in Acts 17 give us one of the first recorded situations where a believing Jew and Christian had the opportunity to explain the true God of the Bible to outsiders in a way that would explain why it is illogical to worship gods of silver, gold, or stone.  I believe Paul specifically chose the words of that Greek poet because it contained the word génos, because Paul believed and taught that we are the very same kind of being as God. 

But I don’t believe Paul’s audience would have necessarily understood génos in a sexual sense (although they might have), because I think they understood the term in the way that it was commonly used in that day to mean kind of being or species.  And I believe that’s exactly the way Paul intended it, that we are the same species or same kind of being that God is, and the logic of his argument supports this view.   I also think Paul was using the term in the exact same way his audience would have understood it, because I believe Paul was an honest man and wouldn’t try to trick his audience into believing in Christianity by baiting them using false teachings.

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

The Greek gods were pagan.  Paul was not saying that one of these pagan gods was Heavenly
Father and another was Heavenly Mother, or that God was married and having children in
some celestial environment.

I agree that Paul was not saying anything about the pagan gods.  Instead, Paul was teaching them about the true God of the Bible and was teaching the pagans that we are all God’s “offspring”, his génos, the very same kind of being that God is.  This is indisputable because of the context and logic of his argument against worshipping gods of gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

The Christian commentaries that try to sidestep the clear meaning of this passage by claiming Paul was only saying we are God’s creations completely destroys the logic of Paul’s argument along with his integrity.

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

On 9/28/2025 at 5:15 PM, InCognitus said:

What do you think “image” and “likeness” means in this verse?:  “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4). 

That's about making an idol to worship.

Yes, it is.  But you didn’t answer the question.  What do you think “image” and “likeness” means in that verse ( Exodus 20:4)?   

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

On 9/28/2025 at 5:15 PM, InCognitus said:

How is it the same or different from Genesis 1:26 and 5:3?

I think the latter means Seth reflected the image of Adam more than any of his [Adam's] 
children.

And Adam reflected the image and likeness of God more than anyone else but Seth?  Or in what way is Seth and Adam different than anyone else?  And why would the meaning of "image" and "likeness" in Genesis 1:26 and 5:3 be any different than "image" and "likeness" in Exodus 20:4?

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

On 9/28/2025 at 5:15 PM, InCognitus said:

Your assertion was that 1 Peter 3:18-20 refers to “all the unsaved who perished in the flood”, but those verses also say that Jesus went and preached “to the spirits in prison”.  Where does it say that Jesus preached to “all the unsaved” at that time?

I didn't see any exclusion from the unsaved that perished in the flood. Only eight were saved.

So you admit that the verse doesn’t say what you claimed.  That’s all I needed to know.

On 10/6/2025 at 8:30 AM, theplains said:

On 9/28/2025 at 5:15 PM, InCognitus said:

The point is that Jesus only went to preach to a portion of those who died in the flood, and he prepared a way for all the others to be taught the gospel through the missionary work that he organized in the spirit world.  That much is clearly detailed in the Doctrine and Covenants as already discussed.

What portion of those who died in the flood – the saved or the unsaved?

Doctrine and Covenants 138:28 says, "And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my 
understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the 
wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them").  

According to this D&C passage, Jesus did not go to the wicked AND to the disobedient. 
But 1 Peter 3:18-20 says he did go to the disobedient.

As I explained before, Doctrine and Covenants 138 (like many other places in scripture) refers only to the extremes, the most righteous and the most wicked.  And the vision came in answer to the specific question about how Jesus managed to preach to everyone who had died since the beginning of time in the three-day period while his body was in the grave.  The answer to that question was that Jesus organized the righteous saints to go and teach them after he was resurrected. 

And when section 138 says that Jesus didn’t go to the wicked and disobedient, it is in reference to the very wicked ones, because Doctrine and Covenants section 76:73 and 88:99 both refer to Jesus having preached the gospel to those who were in prison (of the terrestrial world), which is totally in accordance with 1 Peter 3:18-20.