Overthrowing the church of God

[theplains]

On 6/29/2025 at 9:44 PM, InCognitus said:

What would be the point (from God’s point of view) of having those people being raised from the dead and go to show themselves to people in the city, but then die again later?

I don't know.
 

On 6/29/2025 at 9:44 PM, InCognitus said:

 Is it the point that Christ has power to raise the dead like he did with Lazarus?  But we already knew that, he did that while he was alive.  Or is it more likely that since Christ had literally died himself and rose up from the dead into immortality, to show that he has power to raise people from the dead into immortality and eternal life?  I just don’t see any reason for Matthew to mention those events in connection with Christ’s resurrection unless it was intended to be a testament to the power that Christ has to raise us all from the dead into immortality.

Please explain how it makes any sense from your point of view.

Just as we know Christ was able to raise Lazarus and others from the dead while he was alive 
(some examples - Jairus' daughter; Matthew 9:18-26 and a widow's son; Luke 7:11-17), we know he 
is able to also raise us from the dead into immortality.
 

On 6/29/2025 at 9:44 PM, InCognitus said:

As for the “first resurrection” having an even greater magnitude, what could be of a greater magnitude than having the first resurrection begin right after the point in time that Christ was resurrected and continue until his second coming?

We can't be sure they (with the exception of Christ) were raised to immortality.  We have a record 
of Christ's ascension but nothing about the ascension of the others or how they remained on earth 
to preach the gospel (in addition to the 3 Nephites and John as believed by the Latter-day Saints).
 

On 6/29/2025 at 9:44 PM, InCognitus said:

All those in the first resurrection are Christ’s, but every man is resurrected according to their “several distinct bands or classes” (according to Thayer’s lexicon definition) as Paul stated in 1 Cor 15:23.

All in the first resurrection will become priests and reign with Christ for a thousand years 
(Revelation 20:6).
 

On 6/29/2025 at 9:44 PM, InCognitus said:

The “firstfruits” indicate the beginning of the harvest, and they are the faithful saints gathered out from the earth starting from the time right after Christ’s resurrection (as indicated in Matthew 27:50–53) up unto the second coming of Christ in the morning of the first resurrection.

I'm not sure where you get the idea of a morning and afternoon of the first resurrection or that 
some in the first resurrection are not made priests and kings.
 

On 6/29/2025 at 9:44 PM, InCognitus said:

“They that are Christ’s” are all the others who have received Christ but either weren’t valiant in their testimony of the Savior during their lifetime or otherwise received Christ after being taught about him in the spirit world.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 says, "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". 

Who are the dead and living in Christ who will raised to forever be with the Lord?

Galatians 3:29 says, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to 
the promise".

Who are the heirs who belong to Christ?
 

On 6/29/2025 at 9:44 PM, InCognitus said:

The wording in the Doctrine and Covenants doesn’t directly depict the order.  In 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Paul uses the word “first” which does depict an order.  But in Doctrine and Covenants 88:96-97, it says “And…. And….”, which simply identifies events that happen without explaining the order.

Do the "Ands" in Revelation 12 simply identify events or do they also explain order?
 

On 6/29/2025 at 9:44 PM, InCognitus said:

This is no different than in the gospels, where Jesus says in Matthew 24:11-12, “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.  And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.”  Will you criticize Jesus if false prophets happen to show up after iniquity abounds and the love of many waxes cold?

I see your point.

But iniquity followed deception in the above case.
 

On 6/29/2025 at 9:44 PM, InCognitus said:

The transgression of Adam and Eve was done in innocence without them having a knowledge of good and evil, and even though their transgression had a great impact on mankind, it was obviously not so terrible that God wiped out the earth and started over like he did with Noah and the flood.

But it was terrible enough in that they were separated from God and all mankind suffers the 
consequences of the Fall.  Gospel Principles puts this terribleness on a shelf and adds the Fall's 
great blessings next to it.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-6-the-fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=eng

In the episode of the Fall, the Pearl of Great Price records Adam blessing God in his eyes being 
"opened".  Eve appeared to exhibit even greater wisdom than Adam in her expression of gladness 
(Moses 5:10-11).  Compare this with the Bible where Adam and Eve were ashamed of their nakedness, 
made fig leaf aprons, and attempted to hide from God.
 

On 6/29/2025 at 9:44 PM, InCognitus said:

Since God didn’t wipe out the earth and start over after the fall of Adam, it seems obvious to me that the violence and corruption (murdering and stealing) among mankind at the time of Noah was considered a far greater sin in God’s eyes.  So in recognition of the degrees of disobedience, the murdering and stealing is obviously a far greater sin than that of Adam and Eve’s.

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.
 

On 6/29/2025 at 9:44 PM, InCognitus said:

They are put into one category in the sense that they all perished in the flood, but not in one category with respect to their judgement, as there were people in both the telestial and terrestrial realm in that group.

Do you believe people from the telestial realm are in the group mentioned in 1 Peter 3:19?
 

On 6/29/2025 at 9:44 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, and thus the very reason there is a terrestrial kingdom that is different than the telestial kingdom.

And another reason for having two lower divisions of the Celestial Kingdom (according to LDS 
theology). They are punished with the inability to have spirit children (no eternal increase) 
and not living with Heavenly Father.  But I don't know how else the punishments differ between 
the middle and lower division.

[InCognitus]

11 hours ago, theplains said:

On 6/29/2025 at 7:44 PM, InCognitus said:

What would be the point (from God’s point of view) of having those people being raised from the dead and go to show themselves to people in the city, but then die again later?

I don't know.

I do.  See below.

11 hours ago, theplains said:

On 6/29/2025 at 7:44 PM, InCognitus said:

 Is it the point that Christ has power to raise the dead like he did with Lazarus?  But we already knew that, he did that while he was alive.  Or is it more likely that since Christ had literally died himself and rose up from the dead into immortality, to show that he has power to raise people from the dead into immortality and eternal life?  I just don’t see any reason for Matthew to mention those events in connection with Christ’s resurrection unless it was intended to be a testament to the power that Christ has to raise us all from the dead into immortality.

Please explain how it makes any sense from your point of view.

Just as we know Christ was able to raise Lazarus and others from the dead while he was alive 
(some examples - Jairus' daughter; Matthew 9:18-26 and a widow's son; Luke 7:11-17), we know he 
is able to also raise us from the dead into immortality.

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?

11 hours ago, theplains said:

We can't be sure they (with the exception of Christ) were raised to immortality.

I think we can.  See above.  Jesus is more than just a prophet.

11 hours ago, theplains said:

On 6/29/2025 at 7:44 PM, InCognitus said:

All those in the first resurrection are Christ’s, but every man is resurrected according to their “several distinct bands or classes” (according to Thayer’s lexicon definition) as Paul stated in 1 Cor 15:23.

All in the first resurrection will become priests and reign with Christ for a thousand years 
(Revelation 20:6).

Yes, the first resurrection, which is the morning of the first resurrection.

11 hours ago, theplains said:

I'm not sure where you get the idea of a morning and afternoon of the first resurrection or that 
some in the first resurrection are not made priests and kings.

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

11 hours ago, theplains said:

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 says, "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". 

Who are the dead and living in Christ who will raised to forever be with the Lord?

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

11 hours ago, theplains said:

Galatians 3:29 says, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to 
the promise".

Who are the heirs who belong to Christ?

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. 

11 hours ago, theplains said:

Do the "Ands" in Revelation 12 simply identify events or do they also explain order?

We have already discussed Revelation 12 many times.  The chapter describes part of a revelation that John saw and he describes the events in the order he saw them, and the revelation he received has several flashbacks in time.  Furthermore, the events in that chapter repeat themselves, as we have discussed many times over again, so the whole chapter can’t be taken to be completely chronological. 

11 hours ago, theplains said:

On 6/29/2025 at 7:44 PM, InCognitus said:

The transgression of Adam and Eve was done in innocence without them having a knowledge of good and evil, and even though their transgression had a great impact on mankind, it was obviously not so terrible that God wiped out the earth and started over like he did with Noah and the flood.

But it was terrible enough in that they were separated from God and all mankind suffers the 
consequences of the Fall.

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

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).

11 hours ago, theplains said:

Gospel Principles puts this terribleness on a shelf and adds the Fall's 
great blessings next to it.

As do many Christian writers. 

St. Thomas Aquinas writes:

"But there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater after sin. For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom; hence it is written (Romans 5:20): “Where sin abounded, grace did more abound.” Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: “O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!” (Summa Theologica, III, 1, Article 3, Reply to Objection 3; see also the Catechism, 412).

11 hours ago, theplains said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-6-the-fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=eng

In the episode of the Fall, the Pearl of Great Price records Adam blessing God in his eyes being 
"opened".  Eve appeared to exhibit even greater wisdom than Adam in her expression of gladness 
(Moses 5:10-11).  Compare this with the Bible where Adam and Eve were ashamed of their nakedness, 
made fig leaf aprons, and attempted to hide from God.

You are so desperate to find contradictions that you take things out of context and miss the continuity and the beauty of the teachings right in front of you, just like you did when you criticized President Nelson’s conference talk for following Luke’s gospel account of the mount of transfiguration, when you found Luke’s account to be contrary to Matthew’s account.

The account of the fall in the book of Moses agrees with Genesis.  In both Moses and Genesis, Adam and Eve were ashamed of their nakedness and made fig leaf aprons and attempted to hide from God (see Moses 4:13 compared with Genesis 3:7).

But in Moses chapter 5, the angel of the Lord teaches Adam that he can repent and be redeemed through the Son of God, and “in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will” (Moses 5:9).  In that knowledge Adam rejoiced, and he saw his eyes being “opened” in the new light of his Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Indeed, “O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!”

11 hours ago, 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 need to point out the exact place(s) in Alma 42:1-2, Moses 6:53-55, and Romans 5:12-19 where it says that Adam sinned when he first partook of the fruit as opposed to later on as a result of the fall.  Certainly, sin entered into the world because of the fall (all men sin in their fallen state), but I’m not finding anything that supports what you are claiming above in those verses.

11 hours ago, theplains said:

On 6/29/2025 at 7:44 PM, InCognitus said:

They are put into one category in the sense that they all perished in the flood, but not in one category with respect to their judgement, as there were people in both the telestial and terrestrial realm in that group.

Do you believe people from the telestial realm are in the group mentioned in 1 Peter 3:19?

No.  Only the terrestrial. 

This should be clear from our prior discussion.  Why are you asking this?  

Edited July 15, 2025 by InCognitus

[theplains]

On 7/15/2025 at 12:10 AM, 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.

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

On 7/15/2025 at 12:10 AM, 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.

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. 

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

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).

All the sheep of Christ have eternal life (John 10:27-28).
 

Notice that verse 99 describes those who come forth in the second part of the first resurrection as "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". 

This correlates exactly with Doctrine and Covenants 76:73-77:

"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;

These are the disobedient, unsaved ones in the days of Noah (1 Peter 3:19-20). Only 8 were saved.
 

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.
 

On 7/15/2025 at 12:10 AM, 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.
 

On 7/15/2025 at 12:10 AM, 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.
 

On 7/15/2025 at 12:10 AM, 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.
 

On 7/15/2025 at 12:10 AM, InCognitus said:

You are so desperate to find contradictions that you take things out of context and miss the continuity and the beauty of the teachings right in front of you, just like you did when you criticized President Nelson’s conference talk for following Luke’s gospel account of the mount of transfiguration, when you found Luke’s account to be contrary to Matthew’s account.

LDS theology has Peter, James, and John also being transfigured.

"The Priesthood is everlasting. The Savior, Moses, and Elias, gave the keys to Peter, James, and 
John, on the mount, when they were transfigured before him". 

History of the Church, volume 3.
 

On 7/15/2025 at 12:10 AM, InCognitus said:

You need to point out the exact place(s) in Alma 42:1-2, Moses 6:53-55, and Romans 5:12-19 where it says that Adam sinned when he first partook of the fruit as opposed to later on as a result of the fall.  Certainly, sin entered into the world because of the fall (all men sin in their fallen state), but I’m not finding anything that supports what you are claiming above in those verses.

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.

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  

 

On 7/15/2025 at 12:10 AM, InCognitus said:

No.  Only the terrestrial. 

This should be clear from our prior discussion.  Why are you asking this?  

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.

[Pyreaux]

@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?

Inference: This implies a principle: if God extended mercy to them, He may to others likewise not entirely culpable (e.g. a humble Chinese rice farmer that never knew Jesus, the thief on the cross, etc).

God Is Not a Respecter of Persons (Acts 10:34–35), “God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”

If a hardened Cainite received preaching in death, would a sincere soul from another time or culture be less deserving? The principle of fairness demands equal access to truth. Any exclusivity would contradict God's justice and impartiality.

Isaiah 42:6–7, 61:1: Freedom to the Captives describe Christ’s mission:

“…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.

“…that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.”

This implies they can respond to be judged and live, not merely condemned. There’s no qualifier limiting this to any era or ethnicity. Nor in other New Testament verse concerning freeing the captive spirits. Catholic traditionally names Adam as being saved at the Descensus / Harrowing of Hell.

P.S. - I think 8 were saved by water - in the narrative. And the "like figure" saves us. Peter brought up the flood because he likes the parallel that 8 is a water baptism initiation number.

P.P.S. - I am partial to the Local Flood theory, we might be reading of archetypal figures and similarities to Apocalyptic writing, it's possible that Genesis is saying only 8 "living souls" had the Holy Spirit, or in Apocalyptic code dehumanizes the Cainites as not real people, like basically all part Nephilim. But not to go too far down that path.

Edited July 25, 2025 by Pyreaux

[teddyaware]

17 hours ago, 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?

Inference: This implies a principle: if God extended mercy to them, He may to others likewise not entirely culpable (e.g. a humble Chinese rice farmer that never knew Jesus, the thief on the cross, etc).

God Is Not a Respecter of Persons (Acts 10:34–35), “God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”

If a hardened Cainite received preaching in death, would a sincere soul from another time or culture be less deserving? The principle of fairness demands equal access to truth. Any exclusivity would contradict God's justice and impartiality.

Isaiah 42:6–7, 61:1: Freedom to the Captives describe Christ’s mission:

“…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.

“…that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.”

This implies they can respond to be judged and live, not merely condemned. There’s no qualifier limiting this to any era or ethnicity. Nor in other New Testament verse concerning freeing the captive spirits. Catholic traditionally names Adam as being saved at the Descensus / Harrowing of Hell.

P.S. - I think 8 were saved by water - in the narrative. And the "like figure" saves us. Peter brought up the flood because he likes the parallel that 8 is a water baptism initiation number.

P.P.S. - I am partial to the Local Flood theory, we might be reading of archetypal figures and similarities to Apocalyptic writing, it's possible that Genesis is saying only 8 "living souls" had the Holy Spirit, or in Apocalyptic code dehumanizes the Cainites as not real people, like basically all part Nephilim. But not to go too far down that path.

It never ceases to amaze me what lengths non-LDS Christians will go to in order to defend the idea that while God is love he’s simultaneously callous, indifferent, unjust, unmerciful and uncharitable when it comes to the happiness and eternal welfare of his creation. Meanwhile we Latter-Day Saints are supposed to feel shame because it’s wrong to believe that the God of perfect love loves each of us so perfectly that he will do anything he possibly can do in righteousness to save us, including offering the spirits of the dead a remission of their sins and salvation if they are willing to receive the gospel of Christ in faith after death. How silly and unsophisticated of us to believe that the God of loves and cares so much about the eternal welfare of his creation that he will do all he possibly can do to save them from the horrors of an endless hell! I recently read a comment from an insightful writer who said that the only way thoughtful and informed non-LDS Christians can say that they love and honor their version of God is if they’re suffering from a cosmic version of Stockholm Syndrome. 

Edited July 26, 2025 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

It never ceases to amaze me what lengths non-LDS Christians will go to in order to defend the idea that God is a callous, indifferent, unjust, unmerciful and uncharitable being.

More likely they spent time in society and then spent some time reading some history and found it self-evident that there isn’t a loving God in charge.

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

We’re supposed to think it’s wrong believe that the God of perfect love loves each of us so perfectly that he will do anything he can possibly do in righteousness to save us, including offering the remission of sins and salvation to those who are willing to receive his gospel in faith after death. How silly of us to believe that the God of love cares enough about the eternal welfare of his creation that he will do all possibly he can can do to save us from the horrors of an endless hell. I recently read a comment from an insightful writer who said that the only way non-LDS Christians can say that they love and honor their version of God is if they’re suffering from a cosmic version of Stockholm Syndrome. 

Funny, people say the same thing about LDS people.

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It never ceases to amaze me what lengths non-LDS Christians will go to in order to defend the idea that while God is love he’s simultaneously callous, indifferent, unjust, unmerciful and uncharitable when it comes to the happiness and eternal welfare of his creation. Meanwhile we Latter-Day Saints are supposed to feel shame because it’s wrong to believe that the God of perfect love loves each of us so perfectly that he will do anything he possibly can do in righteousness to save us, including offering the spirits of the dead a remission of their sins and salvation if they are willing to receive the gospel of Christ in faith after death. How silly and unsophisticated of us to believe that the God of loves and cares so much about the eternal welfare of his creation that he will do all he possibly can do to save them from the horrors of an endless hell! I recently read a comment from an insightful writer who said that the only way thoughtful and informed non-LDS Christians can say that they love and honor their version of God is if they’re suffering from a cosmic version of Stockholm Syndrome. 

The Calvinist "God" is literally the most terrifying "God" out there. It is arbitrary and cruel- having total control over the agency and destiny of it's playthings, yet choosing to eternally torture most of them because it just decided to- even though it could've decided to give all of them grace and saved them all.

Give me some version of the pagan pantheon any day- if those are my two choices 

Edited July 26, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The Calvinist "God" is literally the most terrifying "God" out there. It is arbitrary and cruel- having total control over the agency and destiny of it's playthings, yet choosing to eternally torture most of them because it just decided to- even though it could've decided to give all of them grace and saved them all.

Give me some version of the pagan pantheon any day- if those are my two choices 

I agree! Your post evoked terrifying images of the blood soaked idols of wood, stone and brass from the dim past. But the problem is that unless those who now believe in an immaterial “idol” accept and internalize the illuminating light of the restored gospel of Christ, revealed truth that will enable them to rejoice in the sure knowledge that God truly is a God of infinite and eternal love, compassion, life-affirming wisdom and long suffering, they will remain stuck in the rut of a belief in God and a religion that defies reason.

Edited July 26, 2025 by teddyaware

[Calm]

I don’t think you two (teddy and zealous) understand many of the nonLDS Christians’ beliefs about the nature of God, especially those who identify as Calvinists.  It is a pity Paul Hadik, the longtime poster who is a devout Calvinist iirc (can’t remember if he actually used that label), is not still here to explain and defend his beliefs (though he stopped by last year, so who knows https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75717-mississippi-bishop-resigns-from-the-pulpit/page/27/#findComment-1210175722 ).  

There is a much broader range of views among nonLDS Christians and even among Calvinists than the way you are simplifying them so you can condemn their view of God as twisted.  I see this as similar to antimormons who claim LDS believe God the Father could have been a drag queen for the shock value, taking one aspect of belief and ignoring nuances to arrive at a possible, but not probable (possibly held by a few believers, but not a majority view by any means) interpretation.  These critics insist LDS must accept their claims if they really believe their own doctrine, but since they have cherry picked a few aspects and ignored many more of our doctrines, they misrepresent the actual logic of our belief.

Up front, I personally do have trouble viewing certain Calvinist beliefs of the nature of God as good, but I still believe we shouldn’t resort to arguing the extremes.

There may be aspects of Calvinist belief that are not consistent with each other, but I have not come across a Christian faith yet that has not had to appeal to faith to resolve contradictions/paradoxes/mysteries. Some Calvinists may resolve one issue by believe God creates to condemn, but that is not a majority view among those who identify as Calvinists from what I tell.

Here is a response to certain claims about Calvinism as presented by a Calvinist (he seems to have engaged with many respected individuals online and is treated as credible).  I am using the archived link as the actual one doesn’t work, the whole website appears to be down.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180620160640/http://credohouse.org/blog/12-myths-calvinism

Quote

2. Calvinism is not a belief that God creates people in order to send them to hell.

Again, this is not representative of normative Calvinism. While supralapsarians do believe that God creates people to send them to hell, the majority of Calvinists are not supralapsarians. (More on this here.)

Meaning of supralapsarians:  https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/supralapsarians

 

The “here” has this:

Quote

However, limiting this saving, everlasting love to His chosen ones does not render God's compassion, mercy, goodness, and love for the rest of mankind insincere or meaningless. When God invites sinners to repent and receive forgiveness (Isa. 1:18; Matt. 11:28-30), His pleading is from a sincere heart of genuine love. "'As I live!' declares the Lord God, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?'" (Ezek. 33:11). Clearly God does love even those who spurn His tender mercy, but it is a different quality of love, and different in degree from His love for His own.

https://web.archive.org/web/20161013060828/http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2473

Edited July 26, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don’t think you two (teddy and zealous) understand many of the nonLDS Christians’ beliefs about the nature of God, especially those who identify as Calvinists.  It is a pity Paul Hadik, the longtime poster who is a devout Calvinist iirc (can’t remember if he actually used that label), is not still here to explain and defend his beliefs (though he stopped by last year, so who knows https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75717-mississippi-bishop-resigns-from-the-pulpit/page/27/#findComment-1210175722 ).  

There is a much broader range of views among nonLDS Christians and even among Calvinists than the way you are simplifying them so you can condemn their view of God as twisted.  I see this as similar to antimormons who claim LDS believe God the Father could have been a drag queen for the shock value, taking one aspect of belief and ignoring nuances to arrive at a possible, but not probable (possibly held by a few believers, but not a majority view by any means) interpretation.  These critics insist LDS must accept their claims if they really believe their own doctrine, but since they have cherry picked a few aspects and ignored many more of our doctrines, they misrepresent the actual logic of our belief.

Up front, I personally do have trouble viewing certain Calvinist beliefs of the nature of God as good, but I still believe we shouldn’t resort to arguing the extremes.

There may be aspects of Calvinist belief that are not consistent with each other, but I have not come across a Christian faith yet that has not had to appeal to faith to resolve contradictions/paradoxes/mysteries. Some Calvinists may resolve one issue by believe God creates to condemn, but that is not a majority view among those who identify as Calvinists from what I tell.

Here is a response to certain claims about Calvinism as presented by a Calvinist (he seems to have engaged with many respected individuals online and is treated as credible).  I am using the archived link as the actual one doesn’t work, the whole website appears to be down.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180620160640/http://credohouse.org/blog/12-myths-calvinism

Meaning of supralapsarians:  https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/supralapsarians

 

The “here” has this:

https://web.archive.org/web/20161013060828/http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2473

 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

 

 

And is this member someone well versed in Calvinism or just doing superficial online research?  Letting actual Calvinists speak for themselves?  What are their credentials?

My experience is many LDS do a poor job of summarizing others’ beliefs just as nonmembers often mess up ours.

Edited July 26, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

And is this member someone well versed in Calvinism or just doing superficial online research?  Letting actual Calvinists speak for themselves?  What are their credentials?

My experience is many LDS do a poor job of summarizing others’ beliefs just as nonmembers often mess up ours.

A "roommate" who graduated from an Ivy League College wisely told me that an Ivy League degree is no better then a regular college degree- they use the same books and explain the same information. You are just paying extra for a name.

Regular folks are just as capable of research as "credentialed" people.

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

A "roommate" who graduated from an Ivy League College wisely told me that an Ivy League degree is no better then a regular college degree- they use the same books and explain the same information. You are just paying extra for a name.

Regular folks are just as capable of research as "credentialed" people.

Your roommate may not have known or used what he was offered.

Ivy League schools are generally more research-focused and educationally more rigorous. While applicants ‘money may be a factor (except for those receiving scholarships and financial aid), highly selective admissions (irrespective of socio-economic status), renowned faculty, extensive resources, and a strong emphasis on academic excellence and research outweigh that. Of course the core curriculum would be similar, but some see the depth, breadth, and opportunity for advanced study and research and the associated discipline, a level to which much of what I see passed off as research fails to rise.

Regular folks will appeal to regular folks, not that there's anything wrong with that until they are placed on a par with non-regular folks. The challenge for non-regular folks is to present their advantaged and advanced perspective to regular folks in an understandable way. And there are many non-regular folks who consider themselves regular folks in every other regard, and they are successful in accomplishing that. But hey do not diminish their educational opportunities.

[ZealouslyStriving]

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Your roommate may not have known or used what he was offered.

Ivy League schools are generally more research-focused and educationally more rigorous. While applicants ‘money may be a factor (except for those receiving scholarships and financial aid), highly selective admissions (irrespective of socio-economic status), renowned faculty, extensive resources, and a strong emphasis on academic excellence and research outweigh that. Of course the core curriculum would be similar, but some see the depth, breadth, and opportunity for advanced study and research and the associated discipline, a level to which much of what I see passed off as research fails to rise.

Regular folks will appeal to regular folks, not that there's anything wrong with that until they are placed on a par with non-regular folks. The challenge for non-regular folks is to present their advantaged and advanced perspective to regular folks in an understandable way. And there are many non-regular folks who consider themselves regular folks in every other regard, and they are successful in accomplishing that. But hey do not diminish their educational opportunities.

What I take issue with is the idea that a highly motivated "regular" person doesn't have access to, or can't understand, the information in the field of which they have particular interest. To insist that a person must be highly formally educated and credentialed is educational elitism- highlighted by idea that I bolded above- which in "regular folk" speech means "dumbed down".

Edited July 27, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

18 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Regular folks are just as capable of research as "credentialed" people.

And do you let untrained mechanics work on your car or someone like me who has studied medicine all my life, but never went to med school diagnosis your medical issues, tell you what meds you should or worse, operate on you?  A doctor asked me once if I had medical training after discussing the diagnosis with me and after all, I was the one who who confirmed my daughter’s diabetes before she ever saw a doctor (tested glucose levels and she was off the charts).  Surely I have demonstrated I am as good as anyone trained in the field.  

He was wrong imo (added if the justification is the lack of training plus it depends on what you mean by “regular folks”, lacking in education for any type of research or same university courses leading to same degree, just not at an Ivy League school).  While credentials don’t guarantee decent critical analysis, training in the field or actual personal experience is going to make it much more likely that someone will be able to properly critique sources and not inflate the value of trivial info while ignoring more essential or reliable material.

Now someone can pick it up on their own with diligent work, imo, if they subject themselves to credible outside criticism of their work.  In fact, one of the most important aspects of education is going through the process of having one’s work critique so you learn what weaknesses (lack of knowledge or skills) you have.  It helps if you have training in critical analysis in another field as well since many research skills transfer over.

Edited July 27, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

And do you let untrained mechanics work on your car or someone like me who has studied medicine all my life, but never went to med school diagnosis your medical issues or worse, operate on you?

Have I made any illusion to practical application in fields that require licensing?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Have I made any illusion to practical application in fields that require licensing?

What is the difference in learning a skill through self teaching vs from professionals?

PS:  by credentials, I mean what makes them a credible source; it doesn’t have to be a university degree, but there needs to be evidence of legitimate experience or training, whether professional or amateur, in the field so as to be able to properly judge the value of relevant information.

Edited July 27, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

A "roommate" who graduated from an Ivy League College wisely told me that an Ivy League degree is no better then a regular college degree- they use the same books and explain the same information. You are just paying extra for a name.

Regular folks are just as capable of research as "credentialed" people.

There is a lot of crossover between ivy league and conventional education. Ivy League tends to be more competitive to get into the faculty and also has a huge advantage in terms of networking but similar stuff is taught. However that is not an equivalent of someone untrained in academics trying to do academic research.

The second part where you say amateurs are as good at research as anyone else is usually not true. Yes, an amateur could learn how to do real academic research but most don’t. They have a vague idea of how it works and go off of that. They are not accustomed to the rigorous grilling and critiques academic discourse involves. They usually don’t present their points with academic rigor. Most amateurs are terrible at it or are producing stuff that wouldn’t pass any kind of academic muster.

Even if they do know what they are doing academics have access to a lot of information amateurs do not. Expensive books, rare books, access to academic journals, and the like.

There are some skilled amateur researchers but most of them have some connection to the world of academia to get access to resources.

Then again academic study and research is being slowly murdered in the US at the moment as we boil universities down to short-term contract teaching for starvation wages and fewer people doing real research. We are all going to be intellectually poorer for it so we may be on the verge of amateur research being the only thing out there. I suspect this will be very bad.

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Even if they do know what they are doing, academics have access to a lot of information amateurs do not.

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

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

[CV75]

14 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

What I take issue with is the idea that a highly motivated "regular" person doesn't have access to, or can't understand, the information in the field of which they have particular interest. To insist that a person must be highly formally educated and credentialed is educational elitism- highlighted by idea that I bolded above- which in "regular folk" speech means "dumbed down".

An advanced perspective by its nature cannot be dumbed down. "Regular" (dissimilarly educated and disciplined) folk can understand it given the right language. This can be accomplished by their becoming familiar with the language through self-study or by the highly-educated and disciplined conveying the information to them in "regular" language. It is usually a cooperate exercise. This in no way is dumbing down, but also why ivy League school degrees are better than regular degrees.

In both cases, some "regular" folk and some educated folk are not as intelligent, smart, adept or effective learners and communicators as they think they are! None of this has anything to do with their eternal worth -- is that what your roommate meant?

[ZealouslyStriving]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This in no way is dumbing down, but also why ivy League school degrees are better than regular degrees.

How is a degree in botany from Yale and better than a degree in botany from Oregon State?

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In both cases, some "regular" folk and some educated folk are not as intelligent, smart, adept or effective learners and communicators as they think they are!

Agreed, and some regular folks aren't as dumb as some of the educational elite think they are.

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

None of this has anything to do with their eternal worth -- is that what your roommate meant?

Nothing spiritual going on in any of this.

Though, now that you brought it up...

Will having a Yale degree count more in your favor as to the "obtaining that degree of intelligence" that will rise with you, than obtaining a degree in the same field from an "inferior" university?

Edited July 27, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[webbles]

11 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How is a degree in botany from Yale and better than a degree in botany from Oregon State?

I don't know about botany, but a bachelor's degree in Computer Science from MIT or Stanford is much better than the same degree from most other schools.  The teachers and labs are better quality.

I didn't go to those schools but I can tell when comparing new graduates and how much they know.  Are there graduates from those schools who aren't great?  Yes.  Are there graduates from other schools that are better?  Yes.  But in aggregate, graduates from those schools are just better.

Talking about botany, I believe a degree dealing with apples from Washington State would be better than one from Yale.  That's because Washington State has much better teachers and labs for apples (the Cosmic Crisp and many of the newer varieties of apples come from Washington State).  So it isn't just being an "Ivy League" school that is what is important.  It is what the school has access to.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They are not accustomed to the rigorous grilling and critiques academic discourse involves…

Even if they do know what they are doing academics have access to a lot of information amateurs do not. Expensive books, rare books, access to academic journals, and the like.

There are some skilled amateur researchers but most of them have some connection to the world of academia to get access to resources.

This is what I was essentially talking about.  Those who research in a field they were not educated in who are successful tend to have had some overlapping skill training (like how to do credible research, which includes privileging sources appropriately), so they know what criticism applies and how to appropriately respond to it (use it to improve their work versus just get defensive).  Those I am aware of tend to be involved in discussions with those who are professionals, so their work is getting frequently critiqued, etc…and these amateurs most likely seek out and listen to the advice of others on how to improve their work and thus show they should be taken seriously.

Zealous, I would also like to point out I was not automatically dismissing the video by asking for credentials and familiarity.  What I was asking for was information that this guy had done more than just collected criticisms from online commentaries of dubious origins and regurgitated them since I am only vaguely aware of him.  He might be a fantastic researcher, etc, but you provided no info on who he was or why we should find him worth our time.  I don’t assume something is not worth my time without more info, but given the massive amount of clutter online and my preference for reading, I also don’t click just because someone says “look at this”.  There needs to be more to catch my interest, especially if my experience says it’s a problematic issue….

And nonmembers telling people what another faith believes rather than letting members talk for themselves and then discussing it with them (thus allowing for corrections of misunderstandings) tends to be in the category of very high error, so I see the topic as highly problematic.  

While I am aware of him enough I might have clicked on him if he was challenging misinformation about the Restored Gospel and our Church, I am much less inclined if he is criticizing other faiths as I have no idea how familiar he actually is with them.  Thus I requested more info.

Edited July 27, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

Replies in bold:

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How is a degree in botany from Yale and better than a degree in botany from Oregon State? I explained this in my first post. But Yale does not offer a Botany degree while Oregon State does. Your comparison needs to compare apples to apples.

Agreed, and some regular folks aren't as dumb as some of the educational elite think they are. I didn't think that was the direction you wanted to take this.

Nothing spiritual going on in any of this. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

Though, now that you brought it up...

Will having a Yale degree count more in your favor as to the "obtaining that degree of intelligence" that will rise with you, than obtaining a degree in the same field from an "inferior" university? See first bolded reply above. But all things considered, intellectual favor upon resurrection depends on how the person (which does rise) applies their degree (which does not rise), yes. When a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through their diligence and obedience than another, they will have so much the advantage in the world to come. Two people of equal diligence and obedience will gain more botanical knowledge and intelligence at Cornell, for example, than Oregon State because its plant biology program is ranked higher (Cornel #4, Oregon not in top 10).

Edited July 27, 2025 by CV75

[Calm]

5 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How is a degree in botany from Yale and better than a degree in botany from Oregon State?

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:

Quote

Ultimately, the better program depends on an individual's specific interests. Students drawn to traditional botany, field research, and agricultural applications might find OSU a better fit. Those interested in the molecular mechanisms of plant life and cutting-edge research might prefer Yale.

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.

Edited July 27, 2025 by Calm