Overthrowing the church of God

[theplains]

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

But he mentions three “glories”. 

Paul mentions two main sets – the earthly and the heavenly.  Within the heavenly (the celestial) 
set, he identifies three subsets (the sun, the moon, and the stars).

"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, KJV).

The ESV words it a little differently ("There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the 
glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another").

What earthly bodies is this a reference to?

Since you believe the glory of the moon is terrestrial, what other terrestrial bodies have the 
glory of the moon?

Is the earth a celestial (heavenly) or terrestrial (earthly) body according to Paul?
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

And the “heavenly” consists of three glories, compared to the apparent differences in glory between the sun, the moon, and the stars.

1 Corinthians 15:41 says, "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".

In the LDS version of the celestial kingdom with its three levels, how many glories are there?
  
Do you believe Doctrine and Covenants 129:1-3, that all beings in heaven (angels who are resurrected 
and the spirits of just men made perfect) have the same glory as God as the passage says?

The following is taught by Joseph Smith, chapter 18

Those who inherit the celestial kingdom are "they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that 
of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all".

But all in the LDS celestial kingdom don't have the glory of God because they are not exalted.

This aspect of "same glory" is taught elsewhere in the chapter:

"Go and read the vision in [Doctrine and Covenants 76]. There is clearly illustrated glory upon 
glory—one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and a glory of the stars; and  as one star 
differeth from another star in glory, even so do they of the telestial world differ in glory, and 
every man who reigns in celestial glory is a God to his dominions".

"… [The righteous who have died] shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal 
glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with 
Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory  and the same exaltation, until 
you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who 
have gone before".

There is one glory of the sun, not three.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul does not say "and the glory of the telestial is another", but I understand 
Joseph Smith added it to his translation.

Regarding the stars, do you believe all stars have the same glory or are there many glories because 
stars differ in the size, brightness, and energy?

Why is there only one glory of the moon, without differences like the stars? Do all people with 
the "glory of the moon" have the same glory?
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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).

I saw the thread going back to 2012.  It has no bearing on what Paul is teaching.

There was a quote from a website which said, "We know now that there are three worlds: the telestial, 
in which we live; the celestial, to which we aspire; and in between them another world, called the 
terrestrial. It is of neither the celestial nor the telestial".

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=58

That link is not active so I cannot determine who said it or when.

I didn't find any relevant song by "The Telestials of Nashville" to indicate some doctrinal teaching.  
I tried to load up their webpage (telestials.com) but nothing displayed.

I hadn't checked before.  Now I see that Joseph Smith changed 1 Corinthians 15:40 to "Also celestial 
bodies, and bodies terrestrial, and bodies telestial; but the glory of the celestial, one; and the 
terrestrial, another; and the telestial, another".

If you appeal to a song by "The Telestials", who don't speak for all the LDS and non-LDS churches, 
then you'll have to contend with LDS hymns that are for the LDS Church.

1] If You Could Hie to Kolob

This one speaks of a place where Gods began to be (formed); an infinite regress of Gods.  I'm not 
surprised as it follows the teachings of other LDS leaders too.

Stanza 1 reads as follows:

If you could hie to Kolob
In the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward
With that same speed to fly,
Do you think that you could ever,
Through all eternity,
Find out the generation
Where Gods began to be?

2] Praise to the Man

Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!
Jesus anointed that Prophet and Seer.
Blessed to open the last dispensation,
Kings shall extol him, and nations revere.

Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven!
Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.
Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren;
Death cannot conquer the hero again.

We don't praise anyone in heaven other than God. We don't sing about Peter, Paul, etc.

Also, there is no scripture to teach that Joseph Smith has already ascended to heaven (like Roman 
Catholicism's Mary) and is mingling with Gods. We don't need Peter or Paul to plan for his brethren 
from heaven. Kings will only extol and revere Jesus Christ, not Joseph Smith.
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.”

I see. You are applying it from a human perspective instead of God's perspective.

"How they appear to us" when viewed from earth is like comparing an orange (what we see) with an 
apple (with what God sees) instead of comparing apples to apples (heavenly bodies like the sun, 
moon, planets, and stars to each other) as God sees them.

With our telescopes we see "how stars appear to us" – they are larger and brighter than the sun.  
You limit "how they appear to us" to only what we can see with our naked eye, without the use of 
technology to see further and more.

But Paul does not consider the earth to be celestial or telestial.  The earth is terrestrial, an 
earthly body. There are several glories for earthly bodies (humans, plants, animals, etc). Joseph 
Smith did not understand that.

Mars and Venus are other heavenly bodies but not stars.

In similar fashion to celestial bodies and glory, Joseph Smith also misunderstood the aspect of 
"how time is reckoned" as shown in the Pearl of Great Price.

Abraham 3:16 says Kolob is the greatest of the stars because it is nearest unto God.

"And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne 
of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it; And the Lord said unto me: These 
are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for 
I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as 
that upon which thou standest." (Abraham 3:2-3).

These two verses are tricky.  The stars are the governing ones but only Kolob governs the objects 
that are of the same order as the Earth.  Maybe stars only govern objects that are not of the same 
order as Earth.

"And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, 
according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto 
the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed 
unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord's time, according to the reckoning 
of Kolob" (Abraham 3:4).

If Kolob is revolving around the throne of God, then I would say the throne of God (of some planet 
or star) is the governing body over all the other stars and planets.

Does a star even have seasons like Earth (winter, spring, summer, fall)?

"And the Lord said unto me: The planet which is the lesser light, lesser than that which is to 
rule the day, even the night, is above or greater than that upon which thou standest in point of 
reckoning, for it moveth in order more slow; this is in order because it standeth above the earth 
upon which thou standest, therefore the reckoning of its time is not so many as to its number of 
days, and of months, and of years" (Abraham 3:5).

The first part of this verse says the moon's reckoning is greater than the Earth's. The last part 
of the verse seems to reverse that position. Which is it?   What moves in order more slow than 
what?

Verse 7 again says the reckoning time of the moon is larger than the earth ("Now the set time of 
the lesser light is a longer time as to its reckoning than the reckoning of the time of the earth 
upon which thou standest").

Seeing that the moon is above the Earth sometimes and below the Earth at other times, how is its 
time of reckoning considered more than the Earth in the above two passages?  After all, depending 
on the moon's position, it is sometimes farther from Kolob and other times closer to Kolob than 
Earth.  

"And where these two facts exist, there shall be another fact above them, that is, there shall 
be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still" (Abraham 3:8).

"And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come 
nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord's time; which Kolob is set nigh 
unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon 
which thou standest" (Abraham 3:9).

Does Mercury or Neptune have a longer reckoning of time than the Earth?  Before you answer than, 
consider the earlier statements of the Earth and the moon and consider all their positions relative 
to each other during their revolution around our Sun and supposedly Kolob.  

Seems that Joseph Smith mistakenly thought, despite planetary orbits, they are always the same 
distance away from Kolob relative to each other.

Why is Kolob not specifically mentioned as governing the stars but is only mentioned as governing 
planets?  Earth is of the order of a planet, not a star.  

I wonder too if the moon is of the same order as the earth since it [the moon] revolves around 
the earth and not earth revolving around the moon.

"And it is given unto thee to know the set time of all the stars that are set to give light, until 
thou come near unto the throne of God" (Abraham 3:10).

Considering that the Earth revolves around the Sun and the Sun supposedly revolves around Kolob, 
is the Earth or the Sun always closest to or farthest from Kolob? 

And what of the set time of all the other stars?  Does their orbit always mean their "set time" 
is always the same even though they are farther or closer to Kolob?

So, planetary distances vary, and some planets do get closer to or farther from the Sun than others 
at different times in their orbits.  This means their "set times" or "times of reckoning" is not 
always the same.

Joseph Smith's incorrect assumption depends on these distances remaining the same.
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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? 

You forget that the blessing upon the first born is not the priesthood. God designated the tribe 
of Levi to take the place of all the firstborn males in Israel for service at the tabernacle and 
later in the temple (Numbers 3:11–13, 8:16–18).  But the LDS Church gives worthy members of Ephraim 
rights to serve in their temples.

Here are some LDS teachings which seem to connect the birthright with the priesthood:

Doctrine and Covenants 64:35–36. "The rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim"

Ephraim was a grandson of the Old Testament prophet Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. 
Ephraim was given the birthright blessing (see Genesis 48:20). The phrase "blood of Ephraim" 
(D&C 64:36) refers to those who (1) are literal descendants of Ephraim, as well as (2) those who 
are not of the house of Israel but who, through baptism into the restored Church, are adopted 
into the tribe of Ephraim. Only those who are believing and obedient members of the Church are
considered to be of the blood of Ephraim. The rebellious, though they may be literal descendants 
of Ephraim, will not receive an inheritance in Zion (see D&C 64:35–36).

President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) explained the importance of Ephraim's birthright and 
the responsibility Ephraim's descendants have to bless others in the latter days: "It is essential 
in this dispensation that Ephraim stand in his place at the head, exercising the birthright in 
Israel which was given to him by direct revelation. Therefore, Ephraim must be gathered first to 
prepare the way, through the gospel and the priesthood, for the rest of the tribes of Israel when 
the time comes for them to be gathered to Zion" (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie 
[1956], 3:252).

Religion 324-325 - Doctrines and Covenants Student Manual

These are pretty unusual doctrines – being baptized into the LDS Church somehow makes you of the 
blood of Ephraim.  

And those declared to be in the lineage of Manasseh by a patriarchal blessing are not considered 
to be of the blood of Manasseh even if they are believing and obedient.  Instead, the Manassites 
are classified to be of the blood of Ephraim.

This is not the only time the LDS Church has been preoccupied with the blood issue.

Another seminary manual (Religion 430 and 431 – Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual) teaches 
that the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile is different that upon a literal descendant of 
Abraham.

"It is more powerful in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the 
intellect with present knowledge, of a man who is of the literal seed of Abraham, than one that 
is a Gentile, though it may not have half as much visible effect upon the body; for as the Holy 
Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul 
and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost 
upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That 
man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost. 
In such a case, there may be more of a powerful effect upon the body, and visible to the eye, than 
upon an Israelite, while the Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile in pure 
intelligence" (Smith, Teachings, 149–50)."

Again, these blood-related doctrines are unscriptural.

Let's get back to our present topic after I briefly digressed.

But, as you know, the right of the first born (the birthright blessing) that originally belonged 
to Reuben does not pertain to holding the priesthood.  1 Chronicles 5 says the birthright was taken 
from Reuben and given to the sons of Joseph.  In Jacob's blessing of Ephraim over Manasseh, there 
is no specific mention of Manasseh losing the birthright.  While Ephraim received a significant 
blessing and was set before Manasseh, the pre-eminence in terms of leadership and the lineage of 
kingship was given to Judah.

Neither of these two birthright owners held the priesthood in the Old Testament. In the New 
Testament, Jesus in the lineage of Judah becomes our high priest.

Unfortunately that's the way the LDS Church has interpreted things for Ephraim.

And the blessing upon Jacob which "have [past tense] prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors" 
(Genesis 49:26) did not pertain to the priesthood or to a specific land inheritance in the United 
States.
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

Issachar's sons were Tola, Puah, Jashub, and Shimron (Genesis 46:13). Zebulun's sons were Sered, 
Elon, and Jahleel (Genesis 46:14).

Who had the right of the firstborn in the family of Issachar and Zebulun?

The firstborn right for the family of Jacob ends when Jacob dies.  The firstborn right of Jacob 
does not override the first born rights of all the other families born to Jacob's other sons.  
For example, Ephraim does not have the right of the firstborn in the family of Zebulun.
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

The blessing upon Judah is more widespread and not limited to only Judah's (the person) family 
("The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh 
comes"). This indicates leadership and authority.  This is shown in the Old Testament record 
(1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles). It will have its ultimate fulfillment in the 
future.
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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?

Inheriting the earth is in a general reference.  It does not imply a specific land inheritance 
for Ephraim or Manasseh in the United States like Doctrine and Covenants refers to some place in 
Missouri as the land of Zion.  Joseph Smith even taught all of America (North, Central, and South) 
is Zion, excluding Europe, Russia, etc.

"The whole of America is Zion itself from north to south, and is described by the Prophets, who 
declare that it is the Zion where the mountain of the Lord should be, and that it should be in 
the center of the land" (April 1844 General Conference, History of the Church, 6:318–19.)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1979/07/line-upon-line?lang=eng
https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-book/history-of-the-church-volume-6/volume-6-chapter-15

But I'm not sure what he means by the "center of the land", where it is, or the location of the 
mountain of the Lord.
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

All the seed of Abraham did not have a right to the priesthood in the Old Testament. 
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

 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.

The Levites were taken as God's firstborn. They held the priesthood until a change in priesthood 
came with the advent of Christ.  Latter-day Saints still hold onto their need to have the Levitical 
Priesthood.

"And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the 
firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be 
mine" (Numbers 3:12).

"And I have taken the Levites for all the firstborn of the children of Israel" (Numbers 8:18).
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.”

Your understanding of Deuteronomy 33:17 is not correct. I explained this in part 1 of our other 
ongoing thread topic "Ephraim, the birthright, and the gathering", posted on October 10.

Regarding your quote in the Pearl of Great Price:

"And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee above measure, and make thy name 
great among all nations, and thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their 
hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations" (Abraham 2:9).

This is not a specific reference to Ephraim. Only the Levites were taken by God and held the 
priesthood. With Christ came a change in priesthood. 

Ephraim only had the right of the first born for the immediate family of Jacob.  This does not 
extend to the family of Issachar and Zebulun for example.

The right of Ephraim to the Melchizedek Priesthood is not explicitly stated in a single verse of 
scripture. The verses in Doctrine and Covenants 86:8-11 refer to the continuation of the 
priesthood through the lineage of the fathers, but Ephraim is not mentioned by name, neither what 
priesthood this is. The connection to Ephraim is more of an interpretive understanding within 
Latter-day Saint teachings.  

Members of the tribe of Judah, Ephraim, or Manasseh did not hold the Levitical priesthood.  But 
I understand that the LDS Church extends that priesthood to whoever is declared of the lineage 
of Jacob through a patriarchal blessing.
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

Bill Gates is not a Christian leader who speaks for all of Christianity. Teachers at General 
Conference and what is printed in LDS Church manuals and books speak for the LDS Church though.

For the September 23 prophecy, I think I found it mentioned here.

https://thebiblebrief.com/september-23rd-and-no-rapture-what-now/

I'm not sure who this guy is.  I don't have any doctrine that someone other than God knows the 
day or hour of His return or what some refer to as the rapture.

Speculating about the return of Christ became coined as the "Great Disappointment" when it didn't 
occur on October 22, 1844. It's regrettable that many sold their properties and quit their jobs 
to wait for something that never happened.

I also find it regrettable that all Latter-day Saints will be disappointed (maybe we'll call it 
the "Great Disappointment 2") when a temple and city of New Jerusalem will not be built in Missouri 
when the city of Independence currently stands there.

"Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering 
of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared 
in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be 
built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the 
Lord, which shall fill the house" (Doctrine and Covenants 84:4-5)

It's also unfortunate that the prophecy for the Saints to recapture their land of inheritance by 
force was proven to be false. See Doctrine and Covenants 101:44-58; 103:11-36.  

The prophecy of some Moses-like figure will fail too  (103:16).

D&C 103:15–20. The Lord's People Will Redeem Zion through His Power

Doctrine and Covenants 103:15–20 clearly teaches
that Zion will not be redeemed by human strength
alone. The Lord said that the redemption of modern
Zion will resemble the deliverance of ancient Israel
from Egypt (see vv. 18–20). The biblical account
describes how the Lord attended Israel in a cloud by
day and a pillar of fire by night. In 1873 Elder Orson
Pratt taught that the return to Jackson County may be
accompanied by similar manifestations:

"I expect that when the Lord leads forth his
people to build up the city of Zion, his presence will
be visible. When we speak of the presence of the Lord
we speak of an exhibition of power....

"We shall go back to Jackson County. Not that all
this people will leave these mountains, or all be
gathered together in a camp, but when we go back
there will be a very large organization consisting of
thousands, and tens of thousands, and they will
march forward, the glory of God overshadowing their
camp by day in the form of a cloud, and a pillar of
flaming fire by night, the Lord's voice being uttered
forth before his army. Such a period will come in the
history of this people. . . . And his people will go forth
and build up Zion according to celestial law.

"Will not this produce terror upon all the nations
of the earth? Will not armies of this description,
though they may not be as numerous as the armies of
the world, cause a terror to fall upon the nations? The
Lord says the banners of Zion shall be terrible. . . .

"The man like unto Moses in the Church is the 
President of the Church." (Evidences and 
Reconciliations, 1:197.)

Religion 324 and 325 – Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual.
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

Ok. But for all that you consider speculative, official, or unofficial, you need to apply the same 
principle – "It isn't a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true" (Boyd 
K. Packer).

Personally, speculative opinions should be laid by the wayside.

There's also this admonition in Gospel Principles: "Teach only what is supported by the scriptures, 
the words of latter-day prophets and apostles, and the Holy Spirit".

You find these LDS teachings in the sources I mention.  The admonition and the statement by Boyd 
K. Packer do not mean Latter-day Saints should ignore what early LDS prophets and apostles have 
taught.
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

You focus too much on the word "official". You should focus more on what Boyd K. Packer said – 
"It isn't a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true".  

Please don't strain at a gnat but swallow the camel.
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

Each teaching must be considered as being either true or false.  If false, then it leads people 
astray if they believe it. And as Gospel Principles says, "Teach only what is supported by the 
scriptures, the words of latter-day prophets and apostles, and the Holy Spirit".
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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”.

The LDS Church now interprets the Trinity as three separate Gods in the Godhead. 

And you need to consider that the LDS Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ were not part of the Godhead 
before they became Gods.  Heavenly Father was the only member of the Godhead for our Earth when 
he became a God and created it. The Lectures on Faith (#5) once taught there were only two members 
in the Godhead.

"There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over 
all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible 
or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the 
immensity of space—They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory 
and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a 
personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man".

Questions - Section V

3. Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?
A. Two: the Father and the Son (Lecture 5:1).

See pages 48-49.
https://ia601400.us.archive.org/8/items/LecturesOnFaith/lectures_on_faith.pdf
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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 add what Gospel Principles says ("Teach only what is supported by the scriptures, the words 
of latter-day prophets and apostles, and the Holy Spirit"").

Everything printed by the LDS Church (past, present, and future) is done to disseminate what it 
believes is the truth.  That's why you find the words of latter-day prophets and apostles recorded 
in them. Older publications, that contained what the LDS Church taught as true back then, were 
just following what today's Gospel Principles had admonished them.  The same will apply for newer 
publications after the deaths of recent LDS Presidents.

If one doesn't go along with what the latter-day prophets and apostles have taught, then it's a 
sign that one believes it is false or not yet convinced to be true.

Teachings in specific church publications like "Doctrines of the Gospel …" and "Doctrines of 
Salvation" are official doctrines.

And publications like "Gospel Principles" and "Gospel Fundamentals" are just that; principles and 
fundamentals to be accepted as truth.
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

I suppose you also see extremes for the sheep ("My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they 
follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man 
pluck them out of my hand").

Revelation 20:4-6 does not have extremes.

What do you believe is the second death for those not in the first resurrection?
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

Where did you get that so called “quote” from Mormon Doctrine?  Please provide your actual source, or who made it up.

Whoa.  In my last post, I mistakenly inserted a statement and attributed it to Bruce R. McConkie: 
"The afternoon of the first resurrection will not begin until the end of the millennium." 

Not sure where I got that from.  Pardon me for that.   I even checked the 1958 version but it 
wasn't there either.  I'll try to dig some more.  I'll retract what I said for now.

I can confirm what you said about the 1966 edition and Doctrines of the Gospel Teachers Manual. 
I even did a Google search and didn't find any results for that bolded statement I made either.
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

Damnation is not achieving exaltation:

"For someone who has come to understand that, because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, exaltation 
is truly within reach, failing to obtain it constitutes damnation. Thus, the opposite of salvation 
is damnation, just like the opposite of success is failure" (May 2015 General Conference, If You 
Will Be Responsible).

 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

Mosiah 5:7 speaks of becoming the children of Christ through a covenant relationship.

There is no involvement of Jesus with a woman is required for this type of offspring.

John 1:12-13 speaks of becoming children of God by faith. Also see Galatians 3:26, 2 Corinthians 
6:18, and Ephesians 1:5.

Again, there is no involvement of God with a woman required for us to become offspring (children).

Maybe you believe Paul was agreeing with the Greeks that people are offspring of their pagan gods; 
Zeus as God-king and Heavenly Father and Hera his wife, Goddess-queen, and Heavenly Mother.
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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 Greeks believed in their pagan gods (Zeus and Hera).  Paul is teaching them about the true 
God, not a heavenly mother.

As shown above, we can be considered children (offspring) of God by faith.  A heavenly mother is 
not required.
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, it is.  But you didn’t answer the question.  What do you think “image” and “likeness” means in that verse ( Exodus 20:4)?

Image as in idol (statue, picture?) and likeness (appears) [like] something or someone that/who 
should not be worshipped as God.  Not sure how else to explain it.
 

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

  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?

I think Adam before the fall reflected the image of God more than children born to Adam.  For some 
reason, Seth was the only one specified in a different manner as compared to all the other children 
born to Adam.

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

On 10/12/2025 at 9:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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. 

There you go with your extremes again.

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.

Maybe you believe Jesus went to the slightly disobedient but did not go to the very disobedient?

[InCognitus]

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

Paul mentions two main sets – the earthly and the heavenly.  

But he mentions three “glories”, heavenly glories, in the resurrection.

And you are just repeating yourself.  As I said in a previous post, “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.

In other words, in the verses that follow 1 Corinthians 3:41, I have already established that Paul does the two comparisons between the earthly (terrestrial) and the heavenly (celestial, using Paul’s terminology), with the heavenly already established as having three “glories”.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

Within the heavenly (the celestial) 
set, he identifies three subsets (the sun, the moon, and the stars).

"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, KJV).

The ESV words it a little differently ("There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the 
glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another").

What earthly bodies is this a reference to?

Since you believe the glory of the moon is terrestrial, what other terrestrial bodies have the 
glory of the moon?

Is the earth a celestial (heavenly) or terrestrial (earthly) body according to Paul?

See above.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

Regarding the stars, do you believe all stars have the same glory or are there many glories because 
stars differ in the size, brightness, and energy?

Why is there only one glory of the moon, without differences like the stars? Do all people with 
the "glory of the moon" have the same glory?

The three “glories” are basic divisions for those who are willing to abide by the laws of those kingdoms.  But there are “many kingdoms” and variations within those three “glories”.  Paul put it well when he taught that there are varying degrees of “glory” in the resurrection, even “every man in his own order” (1 Corinthians 15:23) for several distinct bands or classes of those who are raised from the dead.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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).

I saw the thread going back to 2012.  It has no bearing on what Paul is teaching.

It has bearing on the meaning of the word “telestial”, which is what you asked about.  

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.”

I see. You are applying it from a human perspective instead of God's perspective.

"How they appear to us" when viewed from earth is like comparing an orange (what we see) with an 
apple (with what God sees) instead of comparing apples to apples (heavenly bodies like the sun, 
moon, planets, and stars to each other) as God sees them.

With our telescopes we see "how stars appear to us" – they are larger and brighter than the sun.  
You limit "how they appear to us" to only what we can see with our naked eye, without the use of 
technology to see further and more.

But Paul does not consider the earth to be celestial or telestial.  The earth is terrestrial, an 
earthly body. There are several glories for earthly bodies (humans, plants, animals, etc). Joseph 
Smith did not understand that.

Mars and Venus are other heavenly bodies but not stars.

You are repeating your ridiculous criticism and are falling into the presentism fallacy, because you are interpreting the past through the lens of present-day attitudes, values, and knowledge.  See Wikipedia article:  Presentism.

The apostle Paul and his audience didn’t have access to modern telescopes and today’s scientific understanding of the relationship of the stars and planets, and it was Paul that was writing the letter to the Corinthians.

God always teaches us in ways that we can understand them.  He uses parables and allegories and symbolism all the time, and he doesn’t expect his audience to know everything that he knows in order to understand what he says. 

Some people today read Isaiah 40:22, for example, where it talks of God sitting “upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers”.  Do you think that reflects God’s scientific understanding of the universe?  Or should we take this verse to support the idea of a flat earth (as some people do)?  Even though God is the ultimate scientist, he doesn’t expect for us to be on the same level that he is on for us to understand his teachings to us. 

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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? 

You forget that the blessing upon the first born is not the priesthood.

No, I don’t forget this at all.  Instead, you forget that I’ve been telling you that very thing since the beginning of our discussion in the prior thread.  See for example my post way back on February 25, 2024 where I said (referring to Ephraim’s birthright): 

“I never said anything about Ephraim and the priesthood.  The birthright had nothing to do with the priesthood. The Levites (mostly) had the priesthood in the Old Testament (the later parts of the Old Testament), but they did not have the birthright.  But the promised seed of Abraham has a natural right to the priesthood as it existed prior to Israel breaking their covenants on Sinai.  And now in the new covenant those of the tribes of Israel can receive that priesthood.”

Are you forgetting that we were talking about Ephraim’s birthright blessing and not about the priesthood?

You should take some time to reread our prior discussion, because you keep trying to reboot the entire discussion and are returning to your same old arguments that have already been discussed in the beginning.  Please stay on track and show some awareness of what has already been covered. 

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

God designated the tribe 
of Levi to take the place of all the firstborn males in Israel for service at the tabernacle and 
later in the temple (Numbers 3:11–13, 8:16–18).  But the LDS Church gives worthy members of Ephraim 
rights to serve in their temples.

Right, because the covenants that God made with mankind prior to the law of Moses have been restored, along with the Melchizedek priesthood.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

Here are some LDS teachings which seem to connect the birthright with the priesthood:

Except those quotes didn’t connect the birthright with the priesthood like you seemed to think.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

Let's get back to our present topic after I briefly digressed.

Except the actual present topic is something else, but you changed it to the resurrection, which now got changed by you again to entirely reboot the topic we have been discussing in the other thread about the blessings pronounced by Jacob and Moses on the tribes of Israel.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

But, as you know, the right of the first born (the birthright blessing) that originally belonged 
to Reuben does not pertain to holding the priesthood.  

I’m glad you finally acknowledge that I “know” that.  Above you were saying that I “forget” that, even though I have been saying that the right to the priesthood is not connected to Ephraim's first born birthright blessing since the beginning of our discussion.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

1 Chronicles 5 says the birthright was taken 
from Reuben and given to the sons of Joseph.  In Jacob's blessing of Ephraim over Manasseh, there 
is no specific mention of Manasseh losing the birthright.  

Does there need to be a specific mention of Manasseh losing the birthright when Jacob, after adopting the two sons as his own, clearly showed the birthright preference for Ephraim by placing his right hand upon Ephraim’s head in his blessing as described in Genesis 48:12-22?

The fact that Ephraim received the birthright blessing is evident in those verses, and that’s exactly the way it is understood from a Jewish point of view.  Just take a look at this article on Ephraim in the Jewish Encyclopedia.  Part of it says:

“He [Ephraim] was the younger of the two sons born to Joseph before the famine, Manasseh being the elder (Gen. xli. 51). Nevertheless, Jacob, while blessing both, confers on Ephraim the rights of the firstborn, to be unto him "as Reuben and Simeon" (Gen. xlvii. 1-20), Joseph unsuccessfully attempting to prevent the preference of the younger. This episode puts the historical fact that Ephraim and Manasseh (and Benjamin) originally constituted one tribe (see Gen. xlix. 22-26; Deut. xxxiii. 13-17) in the form of a personal experience in the family of the patriarch. From Joseph, Manasseh was first to separate: hence he is the elder; but Ephraim, increasing in importance and number, outstrips the brother clan. That the birthright of Reuben is given to Joseph's sons, as is stated in I Chron. v. 1, indicates the gradual disintegration of the tribe of Reuben, and the rise to prominence of the Joseph division. The successive development of these conditions is also reflected in the circumstance that in the enumerations of the tribes Manasseh sometimes precedes Ephraim (Num. xxvi. 34); sometimes the order is reversed (Num. i. 32).”

So you are really arguing against the biblical text.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

While Ephraim received a significant 
blessing and was set before Manasseh, the pre-eminence in terms of leadership and the lineage of 
kingship was given to Judah.

Right, which proves that the blessings were not intended for their immediate family alone, but to their posterity as the “tribes” of Israel.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

Neither of these two birthright owners held the priesthood in the Old Testament.

I was already responding to this unsupported statement in the other thread. 

You are completely wrong to assert that Ephraim (the person) did not hold the priesthood, and the same goes for Reuben or any of the other brothers.  You have nothing to support that assertion.  Prior to Israel breaking their covenant on Mount Sinai they were called the “elders of Israel” (Exodus 3:16, 18, 12:21, 17:5-6, 18:12, 24:1, 9) and the Lord said to them, “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel” (Exodus 19:6).  I believe all the brothers held the priesthood, not just Ephraim.  But that was changed after Israel broke their covenant.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

In the New 
Testament, Jesus in the lineage of Judah becomes our high priest.

Unfortunately that's the way the LDS Church has interpreted things for Ephraim.

What exactly is “the way the LDS Church has interpreted things for Ephraim” that precludes Jesus (who was of the linage of Judah) from becoming the great High Priest?  Please explain.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

And the blessing upon Jacob which "have [past tense] prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors" 
(Genesis 49:26) did not pertain to the priesthood or to a specific land inheritance in the United 
States.

Again, you are the only one I see claiming that these blessings pertain to the priesthood.  I have said repeatedly that the blessings of the priesthood are promised to the seed of Abraham, not Ephraim alone.

As for the land inheritance, I still can’t figure out how “inherit the earth” will exclude the United States.  Do you believe the United States will be taken to heaven?

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

Issachar's sons were Tola, Puah, Jashub, and Shimron (Genesis 46:13). Zebulun's sons were Sered, 
Elon, and Jahleel (Genesis 46:14).

Who had the right of the firstborn in the family of Issachar and Zebulun?

The firstborn right for the family of Jacob ends when Jacob dies.  The firstborn right of Jacob 
does not override the first born rights of all the other families born to Jacob's other sons.  
For example, Ephraim does not have the right of the firstborn in the family of Zebulun.

Ok, so if that’s what you think then only Judah (the person) has the scepter promises, and Jesus doesn’t fulfill any of that.  You can’t have it both ways.

You totally miss the fact that these blessings given by Jacob to his fourteen sons (after Jacob adopted Ephraim and Manasseh in Genesis 48) aren’t for the individual brothers themselves, but to their entire posterity.  This is clear from the fact that Joseph, the person, died in Egypt when he was 110 years old (Genesis 50:26), and he never left Egypt.  But his blessing was to be “a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall” and that “The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills”.  When did Joseph, the person, ever realize these blessings?

And when Moses blessed “Joseph” in Deuteronomy 33:13-17 (which was over 400 years after the death of the person named Joseph), who was Moses blessing?  Joseph in his immediate family?  And why was “Joseph” still given a greater blessing than all of the other brothers, with Ephraim and Manasseh being promised a multitude of posterity?

You are really arguing against the text of the Bible here.  The blessings are clear.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

The blessing upon Judah is more widespread and not limited to only Judah's (the person) family 
("The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh 
comes"). This indicates leadership and authority.  This is shown in the Old Testament record 
(1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles). It will have its ultimate fulfillment in the 
future.

So, you actually recognize and acknowledge the fact that Judah’s blessing was to his posterity, but you don’t allow the same for Joseph.  You have a double standard, and it shows (and I think I know why).

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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?

Inheriting the earth is in a general reference.  It does not imply a specific land inheritance 
for Ephraim or Manasseh in the United States like Doctrine and Covenants refers to some place in 
Missouri as the land of Zion.  Joseph Smith even taught all of America (North, Central, and South) 
is Zion, excluding Europe, Russia, etc.

Inheriting the earth is for Israel (Psalm 37 was written during the time of Israel), and if you check out any world globe (manufactured after the time of Christopher Columbus) it includes the land now known as the United States.  They either inherit the earth, or they don’t.  Is that part of the Bible true too?

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

All the seed of Abraham did not have a right to the priesthood in the Old Testament. 

Where do you find the Old Testament saying that?  And if what you say above is true, then why were all of the elders of Israel said to be a “kingdom of priests” prior to them breaking their covenant on Mount Sinai? 

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

 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.

The Levites were taken as God's firstborn. They held the priesthood until a change in priesthood 
came with the advent of Christ.  Latter-day Saints still hold onto their need to have the Levitical 
Priesthood.

"And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the 
firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be 
mine" (Numbers 3:12).

"And I have taken the Levites for all the firstborn of the children of Israel" (Numbers 8:18).

Do you realize that you are arguing this point using verses that came chronologically after Israel broke their covenant on Mount Sinai?  So this does nothing to support your claims. 

Everything that I documented about the role of the firstborn son in the priesthood serving as the High Priest was prior to when the law of Moses was given.  See my post to you on 03/16/2024, where I included the following Jewish sources:

From the Mishnah Zevachim 14:4:

“Until the Tabernacle was established, private altars were permitted and the sacrificial service was performed by the firstborn. And from the time that the Tabernacle was established, private altars were prohibited and the sacrificial service was performed by the priests. Offerings of the most sacred order were then eaten within the curtains surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle in the wilderness and offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten throughout the camp of Israel.”

The same idea is confirmed by the Jerusalem Talmud, Meghillah 1:11, as quoted below:

“HALAKHAH: [‘The only difference between a public altar and a private altar, etc.’] Rebbi Joḥanan spent three years that he did not visit the house of assembly because of pain. At the end Rebbi Eleazar saw in his dream: Tomorrow Sinai will come down and bring a new insight. He came and said before them, from where is this truth verified that divine service is by firstborns?  [Mishnah Zevaḥim 14:4: Before the Tabernacle was erected private altars were permitted and the service was in the hands of the firstborn.]  From this verse [Num. 3:13, The reference is to the later part of the verse, I sanctified for Me every firstborn in Israel], for Mine is every firstborn; on the day when I smote every firstborn in the Land of Egypt, etc. And it is written [Ex. 12:12. The firstborn were sanctified to God because the gods of Egypt were destroyed.], and on all gods of Egypt I shall pass judgment, etc. Before that what were they doing? Rebecca took the desirable garments of her older son Esaw, which were with her in the house [Gen. 27:15.]. What are ‘the desirable’? That he was acting as High Priest. Rebbi Levi said, the Eternal broke the staff of the evildoers [Is. 14:5.], these are the firstborn who were the first to sacrifice to the Calf [Num. rabba 4(5)].."

And what I quoted above is summarized nicely in the Wikipedia article on the Firstborn:  “Originally, the firstborn of every Jewish family was intended to serve as a priest in the temple in Jerusalem as priests to the Jewish people but they lost this role after the sin of the golden calf when this privilege was transferred to the male descendants of Aaron. However, according to some, this role will be given back to the firstborn in a Third Temple when Messiah comes”.

And in this article from the JTS site, it says: 

“It is true that the other books of Moses treat the status of the first male child less cavalierly. According to Exodus and Numbers, he belongs to God, as do the first fruits of one’s field or flock or herd, and must be redeemed (Exodus 13:1, 22:28, 34:20; Numbers 18:12-18). For a brief time before the calamity of the Golden Calf, all firstborn sons were consecrated to serve in the Tabernacle (Numbers 8:16-19). And Deuteronomy (21:15-17) stipulates that the firstborn son was to receive double the inheritance of his male siblings. But with the eventual loss of political sovereignty and the destruction of the Temple, what remained prominent and widely practiced was the redemption of the first born male of a Jewish mother on the thirty-first day after birth, if neither of his parents were a Kohen or Levi.”

Why don’t you remember that?

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.”

Your understanding of Deuteronomy 33:17 is not correct. I explained this in part 1 of our other 
ongoing thread topic "Ephraim, the birthright, and the gathering", posted on October 10.

My understanding of Deuteronomy 33:17 is quite correct.  

The only thing you “explained” in your other post is that some translations of the Bible translate that Hebrew word differently because the translators were looking at the verse with a military fulfillment (of conquest) instead of a spiritual fulfillment, like some of the early Christian writers did.

I may have more to say on this point in the other folder.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

Regarding your quote in the Pearl of Great Price:

"And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee above measure, and make thy name 
great among all nations, and thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their 
hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations" (Abraham 2:9).

This is not a specific reference to Ephraim.

RIGHT, that has been my point ALL ALONG!   You are the only person saying that the priesthood blessings apply only to Ephraim.  I have never said that the priesthood blessings apply only to Ephraim.  I have always said they apply to all the seed of Abraham.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

Only the Levites were taken by God and held the 
priesthood. With Christ came a change in priesthood. 

See above.  This is only relevant after Israel broke their covenant on Mount Sinai, and then it’s only partially true.

And in New Testament times that was changed, as you acknowledge above.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

Ephraim only had the right of the first born for the immediate family of Jacob.  This does not 
extend to the family of Issachar and Zebulun for example.

The blessings that Jacob pronounced upon his sons were not for their immediate family, see above.

And for Ephraim, his firstborn blessing included the promise that he would be “a multitude of Gentiles” (Genesis 48:18-20).  When did the individual named Ephraim, in the immediate family of Jacob, realize that blessing?

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

The right of Ephraim to the Melchizedek Priesthood is not explicitly stated in a single verse of 
scripture. The verses in Doctrine and Covenants 86:8-11 refer to the continuation of the 
priesthood through the lineage of the fathers, but Ephraim is not mentioned by name, neither what 
priesthood this is.

You should start your own thread and argue with yourself on this topic, because you seem to be the only person making this claim.  Maybe you can come up with some good arguments to refute your straw man.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

Bill Gates is not a Christian leader who speaks for all of Christianity.

Uh, remember, you were talking about what constitutes “doctrines”, and you said, “Put simply, doctrines are just faith-based beliefs that are spoken or printed without the caveat of them just being opinions or speculations.”

And, whether or not Bill Gates is a Christian is irrelevant to the Christian claims that there is a connection between Bill Gates and the mark of the beast.  See for example, Charisma:  Bill Gates Pushes Electronic Tattoos to Replace Smartphones—But Is This Leading to the Mark of the Beast?

Obviously, this is Christian doctrine according to your definition:  “Put simply, doctrines are just faith-based beliefs that are spoken or printed without the caveat of them just being opinions or speculations.”

And you said "Bill Gates is not a Christian leader who speaks for all of Christianity." Your definition of doctrine didn't stipulate the part that I put in bold, but who exactly, in this day and age, is "a Christian leader who speaks for all of Christianity"?  Can you name one?

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

Ok. But for all that you consider speculative, official, or unofficial, you need to apply the same 
principle – "It isn't a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true" (Boyd 
K. Packer).

Personally, speculative opinions should be laid by the wayside.

I agree (speculative opinions should be laid by the wayside).

So, are you retracting your prior statement that “doctrines are just faith-based beliefs that are spoken or printed without the caveat of them just being opinions or speculations”?

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

You focus too much on the word "official".

See?  You are still trying to wiggle out of the “official” part of the CFR.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

You should focus more on what Boyd K. Packer said – 
"It isn't a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true".  

Please don't strain at a gnat but swallow the camel.

You are obviously missing the point of Elder Packer’s statement.  What constitutes “official” doctrine is what can be verified as true by specific revelations in scripture or other sources (and revelations are true and are in accord with Elder Packer’s statement).  Speculation or a particular interpretation of someone’s statement may or may not be true.  We won’t know the answer to a lot of things until God reveals more to us.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

Each teaching must be considered as being either true or false.  If false, then it leads people 
astray if they believe it. And as Gospel Principles says, "Teach only what is supported by the 
scriptures, the words of latter-day prophets and apostles, and the Holy Spirit".

How do you determine if a particular teaching is either true or false? 

Is the word “homoousious” that the Roman emperor Constantine inserted into the Nicene Creed, making Jesus “homoousious” with his Father, true or false?  How would you determine that?  And if it is false, how many people have been led astray by believing it?

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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 add what Gospel Principles says ("Teach only what is supported by the scriptures, the words 
of latter-day prophets and apostles, and the Holy Spirit"").

Everything printed by the LDS Church (past, present, and future) is done to disseminate what it 
believes is the truth.  That's why you find the words of latter-day prophets and apostles recorded 
in them. Older publications, that contained what the LDS Church taught as true back then, were 
just following what today's Gospel Principles had admonished them.  The same will apply for newer 
publications after the deaths of recent LDS Presidents.

If one doesn't go along with what the latter-day prophets and apostles have taught, then it's a 
sign that one believes it is false or not yet convinced to be true.

Teachings in specific church publications like "Doctrines of the Gospel …" and "Doctrines of 
Salvation" are official doctrines.

And publications like "Gospel Principles" and "Gospel Fundamentals" are just that; principles and 
fundamentals to be accepted as truth.

You’re not following Elder Packer’s admonition, "It isn't a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true". 

Church publications that contain a handful of quotations from books like Doctrines of Salvation include those quotations because the quote itself is true, or at the very least the quotes provide a reasonable way of understanding a particular teaching.  But by quoting that source it is by no means implying that everything else in the book should be considered as true.  It’s not a question of who said it, it’s whether or not it is true.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

I suppose you also see extremes for the sheep ("My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they 
follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man 
pluck them out of my hand").

Revelation 20:4-6 does not have extremes.

What do you believe is the second death for those not in the first resurrection?

Extremes are all throughout scripture.  Jesus says "the first shall be last, and the last shall be first" (Matthew 19:30, 20:16), he also taught the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25), and Paul taught the resurrection of the just and unjust (Acts 24:15).  But none of those statements address what happens to those people who are in between.  Not everyone can be the very first, nor can everyone be the very last.  And, exactly how much doing good to others does it take to be a “sheep”, and how much neglect does it take to be a “goat”?

And Revelation 20:4-6 is definitely about the two extremes. 

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

Mosiah 5:7 speaks of becoming the children of Christ through a covenant relationship.

There is no involvement of Jesus with a woman is required for this type of offspring.

John 1:12-13 speaks of becoming children of God by faith. Also see Galatians 3:26, 2 Corinthians 
6:18, and Ephesians 1:5.

Again, there is no involvement of God with a woman required for us to become offspring (children).

Maybe you believe Paul was agreeing with the Greeks that people are offspring of their pagan gods; 
Zeus as God-king and Heavenly Father and Hera his wife, Goddess-queen, and Heavenly Mother.

Do you see what you are doing here?  You keep trying to assert that there is an incompatibility between the teaching that we “become” the children of God by being born again and entering into a covenant with God becoming his heirs, and the teaching that we are all the “offspring of God”, because apparently you have a distaste for that Latter-day Saint teaching.

But the irony is that you are not arguing against Latter-day Saint teachings, you are arguing against the Bible itself!  Why are you arguing against this clear teaching in the Bible?

And to top things off, you are trying to project upon me a belief about the pagan gods that I already made clear that was not what Paul was teaching.  

You keep trying to divert attention away from the reality of the Biblical teaching that we are all the “offspring of God”, the very génos of God, the very same kind of being as God. 

Paul taught that doctrine to explain the true God of the Bible to the pagans at Athens.  And you even acknowledged how Paul’s pagan audience might have understood his teaching (“’offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction… like that which occurs between male and female”), even though you deny that Paul was implying that there is a Heavenly Mother.  But you offer nothing to explain how Paul handled that bait and switch tactic after some of them converted to Christianity and belief in the true God of the Bible.  Instead, you try to deflect to other teachings and to project upon me beliefs that I do not hold to try to divert attention away from this clear teaching in Acts 17:28-29.

You profess to believe in the Bible, but it seems that you really don’t unless it lines up with your modern doctrinal ideas.  Are Paul’s teachings in Acts 17:28-29 true or not?  And if they are true, then why can’t you accept them as such?

The truth of the Bible (and all of scripture) is this:  We are all the offspring of God (as Paul taught), and God is the Father of spirits (all of us).  But our bad behavior (sin) excludes us from being called children of God by faith and in a behavioral and covenantal sense.  Consequently, we must have faith in Jesus Christ and be “born again” and enter a covenant with him, becoming children of God by covenant to inherit all that God has.

You may try to ignore the first part of the statement above, but it’s completely biblical.  And all of those teachings are compatible with one another.  Thus, trying to emphasize the covenantal aspect of being a child of God does nothing to falsify the fact that we are still all the “offspring of God” as Paul clearly taught in the Bible.  It’s still a biblical doctrine.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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 Greeks believed in their pagan gods (Zeus and Hera).  Paul is teaching them about the true 
God, not a heavenly mother.

As I said above, Paul was indeed teaching them about the true God, and Paul taught that we are all the offspring of God.  

You haven’t explained how Paul got around the way that you said his audience would understand him (that we are all God’s “’offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction… like that which occurs between male and female”) in teaching the true God of the Bible.  By your denial that Paul meant it in the same way that his audience would understand his teaching you are saying that Paul was misleading them or even lying to them.  How do you get around that?  Or do you really believe Paul was lying to his audience just to get them to convert?

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

As shown above, we can be considered children (offspring) of God by faith.  A heavenly mother is 
not required.

Or as the Bible clearly teaches, we are actually both the “offspring” (génos) of God AND we can be considered children of God by faith.  It’s not an either/or teaching.

Why are you fighting against this biblical teaching?  Why not just believe what the Bible says?

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, it is.  But you didn’t answer the question.  What do you think “image” and “likeness” means in that verse ( Exodus 20:4)?

Image as in idol (statue, picture?) and likeness (appears) [like] something or someone that/who 
should not be worshipped as God.  Not sure how else to explain it.

In other words, “image” and “likeness” refers to what God looks like.  His appearance.  And man was created by God having the appearance of God.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

  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?

I think Adam before the fall reflected the image of God more than children born to Adam.  For some 
reason, Seth was the only one specified in a different manner as compared to all the other children 
born to Adam.

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

That “some reason” is because Genesis 5 is “the book of the generations of Adam”, and it is the only place where the genealogy from Adam to Noah is set forth.  The chapter is explaining that God made man in his “likeness” and that man (Adam) begat offspring that were also in the image and likeness of God.  It shows that the image and likeness of God is perpetuated.

And this is obviously not something that was different prior to the fall of Adam compared to later, because even much later in the Bible fallen man is said to be “made after the similitude of God” (James 3:9).

So, men (even fallen men) pass on the appearance of God.  They are in God’s “image” and “likeness”, his “similitude”.

On 10/21/2025 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 10/12/2025 at 7:31 PM, InCognitus said:

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. 

There you go with your extremes again.

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.

Maybe you believe Jesus went to the slightly disobedient but did not go to the very disobedient?

I believe Jesus did exactly what scripture says, in 1 Peter 3:18-20, Doctrine and Covenants section 76:73 and 88:99, and in section 138. I don’t see them as contradictory, rather they explain and complement one another.

Edited October 27, 2025 by InCognitus

[theplains]

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

But he mentions three “glories”, heavenly glories, in the resurrection.

And you are just repeating yourself.  As I said in a previous post, “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.

In other words, in the verses that follow 1 Corinthians 3:41, I have already established that Paul does the two comparisons between the earthly (terrestrial) and the heavenly (celestial, using Paul’s terminology), with the heavenly already established as having three “glories”.

"There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and 
the glory of the earthly is of another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the 
moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So is it with the
resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable" 
(1 Corinthians 15:40-41).

Do all people in the LDS version of the celestial kingdom inherit the same glory like Doctrine 
and Covenants 129:1-3 says or do those in the two lower sections have less glory?

It's also taught in another teaching by Joseph Smith:

"... [The righteous who have died] shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal 
glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with 
Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until 
you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who 
have gone before".

In Paul's teaching, where do heavenly (celestial) bodies like the Moon obtain an earthly (terrestrial) 
glory?

The perishable (mortality, earthly) is compared to the imperishable (immortality, heavenly/celestial).
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

Paul put it well when he taught that there are varying degrees of “glory” in the resurrection, even “every man in his own order” (1 Corinthians 15:23) for several distinct bands or classes of those who are raised from the dead.

The Joseph Smith translation says, "Also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial, and bodies 
telestial; but the glory of the celestial, one; and the terrestrial, another; and the telestial, 
another".

Did Joseph Smith view the Moon as a celestial body?
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

Some people today read Isaiah 40:22, for example, where it talks of God sitting “upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers”.  Do you think that reflects God’s scientific understanding of the universe?  Or should we take this verse to support the idea of a flat earth (as some people do)?  Even though God is the ultimate scientist, he doesn’t expect for us to be on the same level that he is on for us to understand his teachings to us.

This verse is often interpreted in various ways. Some people see it as a poetic description of 
God's majesty and omnipotence, emphasizing His perspective and power over the earth and its 
inhabitants. Others have speculated about its implications regarding the shape of the earth.

 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

Right, because the covenants that God made with mankind prior to the law of Moses have been restored, along with the Melchizedek priesthood.

Which covenants prior to the law of Moses do you believe have been restored and when?  Is circumcision 
one of them?
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

Does there need to be a specific mention of Manasseh losing the birthright when Jacob, after adopting the two sons as his own, clearly showed the birthright preference for Ephraim by placing his right hand upon Ephraim’s head in his blessing as described in Genesis 48:12-22?

The fact that Ephraim received the birthright blessing is evident in those verses, and that’s exactly the way it is understood from a Jewish point of view.  Just take a look at this article on Ephraim in the Jewish Encyclopedia.  Part of it says:

“He [Ephraim] was the younger of the two sons born to Joseph before the famine, Manasseh being the elder (Gen. xli. 51). Nevertheless, Jacob, while blessing both, confers on Ephraim the rights of the firstborn, to be unto him "as Reuben and Simeon" (Gen. xlvii. 1-20), Joseph unsuccessfully attempting to prevent the preference of the younger. This episode puts the historical fact that Ephraim and Manasseh (and Benjamin) originally constituted one tribe (see Gen. xlix. 22-26; Deut. xxxiii. 13-17) in the form of a personal experience in the family of the patriarch. From Joseph, Manasseh was first to separate: hence he is the elder; but Ephraim, increasing in importance and number, outstrips the brother clan. That the birthright of Reuben is given to Joseph's sons, as is stated in I Chron. v. 1, indicates the gradual disintegration of the tribe of Reuben, and the rise to prominence of the Joseph division. The successive development of these conditions is also reflected in the circumstance that in the enumerations of the tribes Manasseh sometimes precedes Ephraim (Num. xxvi. 34); sometimes the order is reversed (Num. i. 32).”

What do you believe are the specific birthright blessings given to Ephraim and when did he and 
his descendants first exercise them and how?
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

You are completely wrong to assert that Ephraim (the person) did not hold the priesthood, and the same goes for Reuben or any of the other brothers.  You have nothing to support that assertion.

The Levites being reserved for the priesthood is mentioned in several places throughout the Old 
Testament. 

Here are a few key references:

Exodus 32:26-29: After the incident with the golden calf, the Levites stood with Moses and were 
set apart for the Lord's service. This event marked them as dedicated to God.

Numbers 1:47-53: This passage explains that the Levites were not numbered among the other tribes 
of Israel because they were appointed over the tabernacle of testimony, to carry it and minister 
to it.

Numbers 8:14-19: Here, God instructs Moses to separate the Levites from the other Israelites, 
making them wholly given to Him in place of the firstborn. This passage also describes the 
purification and dedication of the Levites for their service.

Deuteronomy 10:8-9: This passage reiterates that the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi to carry 
the ark of the covenant, to stand before the Lord to minister, and to bless in His name.

1 Chronicles 23:13: This verse highlights that Aaron and his descendants were set apart to 
consecrate the most holy things, to offer sacrifices, and to minister before the Lord, emphasizing 
the priestly role of the Levites.

These references collectively illustrate the special role of the Levites in the religious life of 
Israel, serving in the tabernacle and later in the temple, and performing duties associated with 
worship and sacrifice.

If you believe I am wrong, then show me where Ephraim or his descendants obtain the priesthood, 
what type of priesthood it is, and when they first exercise the priesthood.
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

  Prior to Israel breaking their covenant on Mount Sinai they were called the “elders of Israel” (Exodus 3:16, 18, 12:21, 17:5-6, 18:12, 24:1, 9) and the Lord said to them, “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel” (Exodus 19:6).  I believe all the brothers held the priesthood, not just Ephraim.  But that was changed after Israel broke their covenant.

This is not the Levitical or Melchizedek priesthood.

The "kingdom of priests" has its fulfillment in the New Testament, when women are made a kingdom 
of priests and kings (1 Peter 2:5,9; Revelation 1:6).  The same is taught for those in LDS theology 
who become Gods (Doctrine and Covenants 76:56).
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

What exactly is “the way the LDS Church has interpreted things for Ephraim” that precludes Jesus (who was of the linage of Judah) from becoming the great High Priest?  Please explain.

The LDS Church believes its members hold the office of high priest.  Moses said nothing of the 
priesthood existing in Judah's lineage or other tribes except for Levi ("For the one of whom these 
things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For 
it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses 
said nothing about priests", Hebrews 7:13-14, ESV).

Ephraim has never served at the altar, unless you believe God gave a revelation stating otherwise 
for the New Testament.
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

Again, you are the only one I see claiming that these blessings pertain to the priesthood.  I have said repeatedly that the blessings of the priesthood are promised to the seed of Abraham, not Ephraim alone.

The blessings of the priesthood exercised through Christ as our High Priest, yes. But the priesthood 
was not specifically promised to the tribe of Ephraim.
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

As for the land inheritance, I still can’t figure out how “inherit the earth” will exclude the United States.  Do you believe the United States will be taken to heaven?

There's a generic land inheritance for the meek. As scriptures reveal, there are also a specific 
land inheritance for the Israelites.  

There is no scripture which clearly identifies a specific land inheritance for literal Ephraimites 
in Canada, the United States, or Mexico. The LDS Church today cannot, even with scripture, support 
teachings that any single event in the Book of Mormon occurred in the United States. However, the 
early LDS Church, in General Conference, taught the Nephites and Jaredites fought great battles 
in New York state.
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

You totally miss the fact that these blessings given by Jacob to his fourteen sons (after Jacob adopted Ephraim and Manasseh in Genesis 48) aren’t for the individual brothers themselves, but to their entire posterity.

You miss the fact that none of Jacob's blessings pertain to certain tribes obtaining the priesthood.  

"Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured 
possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of 
priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel" 
(Exodus 19:5–6).

Israel was to live under God's direct rule, representing His sovereignty. Just as priests mediate 
between God and people, the whole nation was meant to mediate between God and the rest of the 
world, showing other nations what it looks like to live under God's covenant. So while the tribe 
of Levi later had special priestly duties, the entire nation was intended to have a priestly 
vocation — reflecting God's holiness to all peoples (Deuteronomy 4:6–8, Isaiah 42:6, Isaiah 61:6).
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

  This is clear from the fact that Joseph, the person, died in Egypt when he was 110 years old (Genesis 50:26), and he never left Egypt.  But his blessing was to be “a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall” and that “The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills”.  When did Joseph, the person, ever realize these blessings?

What do you believe the utmost bound of everlasting hills is?
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

And why was “Joseph” still given a greater blessing than all of the other brothers, with Ephraim and Manasseh being promised a multitude of posterity?

How much is a multitude of posterity?  In several censuses recorded in the Bible, both Manasseh 
and Judah exceed Ephraim (Numbers 1:27,33,35; 26:22,34,37).

Considering that the tribe of Manasseh obtained a double portion of land inheritance over Ephraim, 
what do you believe are the greater blessings Joseph received over all the other brothers?

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".

What blessings had Jacob received which prevailed above the blessings of his progenitors?  Did 
any of these blessings have to do with a land inheritance?

Would you consider the scepter not departing out of Judah as the second or lesser blessing than 
those you believe Joseph received?
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

So, you actually recognize and acknowledge the fact that Judah’s blessing was to his posterity, but you don’t allow the same for Joseph.  You have a double standard, and it shows (and I think I know why).

Ok. Let's analyze what you consider to be my double standard.

Would you clearly identify what you believe is the blessing of Ephraim above all his other brothers 
at any time in history and please provide scriptural support.
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

Where do you find the Old Testament saying that?  And if what you say above is true, then why were all of the elders of Israel said to be a “kingdom of priests” prior to them breaking their covenant on Mount Sinai? 

I addressed this earlier.
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

From the Mishnah Zevachim 14:4:

“Until the Tabernacle was established, private altars were permitted and the sacrificial service was performed by the firstborn. And from the time that the Tabernacle was established, private altars were prohibited and the sacrificial service was performed by the priests. Offerings of the most sacred order were then eaten within the curtains surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle in the wilderness and offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten throughout the camp of Israel.”

In the Old Testament, several individuals set up altars for worship. Here are a few notable examples:

Abraham: He built several altars to the Lord as he traveled through the land. For instance, he 
built an altar at Shechem (Genesis 12:7) and another between Bethel and Ai (Genesis 12:8).

Isaac: He built an altar at Beersheba after the Lord appeared to him (Genesis 26:25).

Jacob: He set up an altar at Bethel after his vision of the ladder reaching to heaven (Genesis 
28:18-19) and later returned to build another altar there (Genesis 35:1-7).

Moses: After the Israelites' victory over the Amalekites, Moses built an altar and called it "The 
Lord is my Banner" (Exodus 17:15).

Joshua: He built an altar on Mount Ebal as part of the covenant renewal ceremony (Joshua 8:30-31).

Gideon: He built an altar to the Lord after an angel appeared to him, calling it "The Lord is 
Peace" (Judges 6:24).

Samuel: He built an altar at Ramah, where he lived and judged Israel (1 Samuel 7:17).

David: He built an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, which later became the 
site of the temple (2 Samuel 24:18-25).

Elijah: He repaired the altar of the Lord on Mount Carmel during his contest with the prophets 
of Baal (1 Kings 18:30-32).

These altars were often places of sacrifice and worship, serving as physical symbols of the 
individuals' or communities' devotion to God.

From the above list, only Isaac was the firstborn. The other individuals mentioned, such as 
Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, David, and Elijah, were not firstborn sons in 
their respective families.

In the Book of Mormon, there are several instances where individuals set up altars for worship:

Nephi: After arriving in the promised land, Nephi built an altar and made offerings to the Lord 
(2 Nephi 5:16). Nephi was not the firstborn; his older brothers were Laman and Lemuel.

Lehi: He built an altar and offered sacrifices after his family safely crossed the ocean to the 
promised land (1 Nephi 18:23). Lehi himself was not a firstborn.
The Brother of Jared: He built an altar but his birth order is not specified (Ether 2:13). No 
other altar, tabernacle, or temple is ever mentioned among the Jaredites.

The Doctrine and Covenants has no examples of people setting up private or public altars.

The Pearl of Great Price mentions Adam offering sacrifices on the altar (Moses 5:5) but he was 
not the firstborn. Maybe Eve and Abel (not the firstborn) also did not build altars or offer 
sacrifices on them?
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

And in this article from the JTS site, it says: 

“It is true that the other books of Moses treat the status of the first male child less cavalierly. According to Exodus and Numbers, he belongs to God, as do the first fruits of one’s field or flock or herd, and must be redeemed (Exodus 13:1, 22:28, 34:20; Numbers 18:12-18). For a brief time before the calamity of the Golden Calf, all firstborn sons were consecrated to serve in the Tabernacle (Numbers 8:16-19). And Deuteronomy (21:15-17) stipulates that the firstborn son was to receive double the inheritance of his male siblings. But with the eventual loss of political sovereignty and the destruction of the Temple, what remained prominent and widely practiced was the redemption of the first born male of a Jewish mother on the thirty-first day after birth, if neither of his parents were a Kohen or Levi.”

Why don’t you remember that?

What double inheritance did Ephraim receive over Manasseh or his male siblings (if you include 
Jacob's other sons)?

If neither of the parents were a Kohen or Levi, then they did not follow how God had set it up 
for the Old Testament.
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

The blessings that Jacob pronounced upon his sons were not for their immediate family, see above.

And for Ephraim, his firstborn blessing included the promise that he would be “a multitude of Gentiles” (Genesis 48:18-20).  When did the individual named Ephraim, in the immediate family of Jacob, realize that blessing?

Maybe I could answer your question if you can tell me how large a multitude is.
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

Obviously, this is Christian doctrine according to your definition:  “Put simply, doctrines are just faith-based beliefs that are spoken or printed without the caveat of them just being opinions or speculations.”

And you said "Bill Gates is not a Christian leader who speaks for all of Christianity." Your definition of doctrine didn't stipulate the part that I put in bold, but who exactly, in this day and age, is "a Christian leader who speaks for all of Christianity"?  Can you name one?

In that "electronic tattoos" link, I am not able to verify what Christian denomination the Daily 
Galaxy represents.

When the LDS Church publishes "Doctrines of Salvation" and "Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual", 
are those true or false doctrines?  Does "Gospel Principles" contain true or false principles of 
the gospel?
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

You are obviously missing the point of Elder Packer’s statement.  What constitutes “official” doctrine is what can be verified as true by specific revelations in scripture or other sources (and revelations are true and are in accord with Elder Packer’s statement).  Speculation or a particular interpretation of someone’s statement may or may not be true.  We won’t know the answer to a lot of things until God reveals more to us.

Elder Packer isn't really trying to define what makes something "official doctrine" as you like 
CFRs for. He's more interested in whether a statement is actually true or not. This includes 
speculations or opinions. But if they aren't expressed that way, then it's not speculation or 
opinion.
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

How do you determine if a particular teaching is either true or false?

... if it has scriptural support.  That’s why I view the LDS doctrines of a Heavenly Mother as false.

It's very dangerous to be taught that some being (an eternal intelligence?) became a spirit child 
of his heavenly parents, then become a man, got married, then became a God (the LDS Jesus became 
a God in the spirit world without becoming a man and getting married), then became Heavenly Father 
of our Earth, and then you ended up worshipping that being.

That would be a foreign god.
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

 Is the word “homoousious” that the Roman emperor Constantine inserted into the Nicene Creed, making Jesus “homoousious” with his Father, true or false?  How would you determine that?  And if it is false, how many people have been led astray by believing it?

It's good to see that you believe false teachings lead people astray but you haven't admitted any 
false teachings in LDS publications or General Conference talks.

I don't know what Constantine meant by that term but I understand there are various interpretations.  
I didn't have anything else to add from what I wrote in other threads.
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

You’re not following Elder Packer’s admonition, "It isn't a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true". 

Church publications that contain a handful of quotations from books like Doctrines of Salvation include those quotations because the quote itself is true, or at the very least the quotes provide a reasonable way of understanding a particular teaching.  But by quoting that source it is by no means implying that everything else in the book should be considered as true.  It’s not a question of who said it, it’s whether or not it is true.

Ok. What teachings in Doctrines of Salvation or Doctrines of the Gospel – Student Manual should 
be considered as false?
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

Extremes are all throughout scripture.  Jesus says "the first shall be last, and the last shall be first" (Matthew 19:30, 20:16), he also taught the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25), and Paul taught the resurrection of the just and unjust (Acts 24:15).  But none of those statements address what happens to those people who are in between.  Not everyone can be the very first, nor can everyone be the very last.  And, exactly how much doing good to others does it take to be a “sheep”, and how much neglect does it take to be a “goat”?

And Revelation 20:4-6 is definitely about the two extremes. 

I don't see a sheep that does not have eternal life (John 10:27-28).  

Then we have the passage in Matthew.

"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the 
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world … And these shall go away into everlasting 
punishment: but the righteous into life eternal" (Matthew 25:34, 46).

Talk about extremes.
 

On 10/26/2025 at 7:38 PM, InCognitus said:

As I said above, Paul was indeed teaching them about the true God, and Paul taught that we are all the offspring of God.  

Which of the Corinthian gods was Paul teaching was the true God?

[InCognitus]

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

"There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and 
the glory of the earthly is of another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the 
moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So is it with the
resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable" 
(1 Corinthians 15:40-41).

Do all people in the LDS version of the celestial kingdom inherit the same glory like Doctrine 
and Covenants 129:1-3 says or do those in the two lower sections have less glory?

It's also taught in another teaching by Joseph Smith:

"... [The righteous who have died] shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal 
glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with 
Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until 
you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who 
have gone before".

In Paul's teaching, where do heavenly (celestial) bodies like the Moon obtain an earthly (terrestrial) 
glory?

The perishable (mortality, earthly) is compared to the imperishable (immortality, heavenly/celestial).

You are mixing the word meanings.  Both Paul and Joseph Smith are borrowing the comparison of heavenly bodies (the sun, moon, and stars) to the degrees of glory in the resurrection.  They are not saying the moon is the earth, but terrestrial is the name given by God to one of the degrees of glory, just as celestial and telestial are assigned to the others.

The early Christian Origen (185-254 AD) spoke of these comparisons and explains it quite well.  He wrote:

“Since the heretics, however, think themselves persons of great learning and wisdom, we shall ask them if every body has a form of some kind, i.e., is fashioned according to some shape. And if they shall say that a body is that which is fashioned according to no shape, they will show themselves to be the most ignorant and foolish of mankind. For no one will deny this, save him who is altogether without any learning. But if, as a matter of course, they say that every body is certainly fashioned according to some definite shape, we shall ask them if they can point out and describe to us the shape of a spiritual body; a thing which they can by no means do. We shall ask them, moreover, about the differences of those who rise again. How will they show that statement to be true, that there is ‘one flesh of birds, another of fishes; bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial; that the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial another; that one is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars; that one star differeth from another star in glory; and that so is the resurrection of the dead?’  According to that gradation, then, which exists among heavenly bodies, let them show to us the differences in the glory of those who rise again; and if they have endeavoured by any means to devise a principle that may be in accordance with the differences in heavenly bodies, we shall ask them to assign the differences in the resurrection by a comparison of earthly bodies. Our understanding of the passage indeed is, that the apostle, wishing to describe the great difference among those who rise again in glory, i.e., of the saints, borrowed a comparison from the heavenly bodies, saying, ‘One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars.’ And wishing again to teach us the differences among those who shall come to the resurrection, without having purged themselves in this life, i.e., sinners, he borrowed an illustration from earthly things, saying, ‘There is one flesh of birds, another of fishes.’ For heavenly things are worthily compared to the saints, and earthly things to sinners. These statements are made in reply to those who deny the resurrection of the dead, i.e., the resurrection of bodies.”  (CHURCH FATHERS:  De Principiis (Book II), Chapter 10:2 (Origen))

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

Paul put it well when he taught that there are varying degrees of “glory” in the resurrection, even “every man in his own order” (1 Corinthians 15:23) for several distinct bands or classes of those who are raised from the dead.

The Joseph Smith translation says, "Also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial, and bodies 
telestial; but the glory of the celestial, one; and the terrestrial, another; and the telestial, 
another".

Did Joseph Smith view the Moon as a celestial body?

Yes and no.  Obviously, the moon is a celestial body (in the sky) in the vernacular of Joseph Smith’s day, and he would have recognized it as such.  But scripture uses symbolism and metaphors all the time to portray true principles and concepts.  So, I have no problem at all with the Lord giving names to the three kingdoms of glory utilizing existing words as symbolic representation of the degrees of glory.

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

Some people today read Isaiah 40:22, for example, where it talks of God sitting “upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers”.  Do you think that reflects God’s scientific understanding of the universe?  Or should we take this verse to support the idea of a flat earth (as some people do)?  Even though God is the ultimate scientist, he doesn’t expect for us to be on the same level that he is on for us to understand his teachings to us.

This verse is often interpreted in various ways. Some people see it as a poetic description of 
God's majesty and omnipotence, emphasizing His perspective and power over the earth and its 
inhabitants. Others have speculated about its implications regarding the shape of the earth.

How people interpret the verse today is beside the point.  The point was that God doesn’t communicate to us using his full scientific understanding of the universe.  Instead, he teaches us using principles and concepts we can understand from our earthly perspective.  And, if people don’t understand that teaching method they can really mess up on their modern interpretations of the Bible (like thinking the Bible teaches that there is a flat earth).

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

Right, because the covenants that God made with mankind prior to the law of Moses have been restored, along with the Melchizedek priesthood.

Which covenants prior to the law of Moses do you believe have been restored and when?  Is circumcision 
one of them?

I was referring to the temple covenants that Israel made with God on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19 and 24), allowing them to see “the God of Israel”, prior to them breaking that covenant with the golden calf, a short time later.

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

What do you believe are the specific birthright blessings given to Ephraim and when did he and 
his descendants first exercise them and how?

We have already discussed this in detail.  Reread the other message folder.

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

You are completely wrong to assert that Ephraim (the person) did not hold the priesthood, and the same goes for Reuben or any of the other brothers.  You have nothing to support that assertion.

The Levites being reserved for the priesthood is mentioned in several places throughout the Old 
Testament. 

You are avoiding the point.  I have already pointed out that that the priesthood duties were primarily limited to the Levites after the incident with the golden calf.  But Ephriam (the person) lived prior to the incident with the golden calf.  So, I’ll repeat what I said last time: you are completely wrong to assert that Ephraim (the person) did not hold the priesthood, and the same goes for Reuben or any of the other brothers.  You have nothing to support that assertion.

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

  Prior to Israel breaking their covenant on Mount Sinai they were called the “elders of Israel” (Exodus 3:16, 18, 12:21, 17:5-6, 18:12, 24:1, 9) and the Lord said to them, “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel” (Exodus 19:6).  I believe all the brothers held the priesthood, not just Ephraim.  But that was changed after Israel broke their covenant.

This is not the Levitical or Melchizedek priesthood.

What priesthood was it if not the Melchizedek priesthood?  Clearly Melchizedek held that same priesthood.  He was the priest of the most high God.  So, what priesthood did Ephraim and his brothers hold, if not the same priesthood as held by Melchizedek?

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

What exactly is “the way the LDS Church has interpreted things for Ephraim” that precludes Jesus (who was of the linage of Judah) from becoming the great High Priest?  Please explain.

The LDS Church believes its members hold the office of high priest.  

No, it doesn’t.  Only High Priests hold the office of High Priest.

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

Moses said nothing of the 
priesthood existing in Judah's lineage or other tribes except for Levi

Again, you keep wanting to jump to the point after Israel breaks their covenant in the incident with the golden calf.  Why do you keep trying to avoid the period of history when Ephriam lived?

Prior to the incident with the golden calf, Moses referred to all the elders of Israel as a “kingdom of priests, and an holy nation”.  The descendants of Ephraim would have been among those elders of Israel.  

So I’ll ask the same question again (referring back to what you said in your prior post):  What exactly is “the way the LDS Church has interpreted things for Ephraim” that precludes Jesus (who was of the linage of Judah) from becoming the great High Priest?  Please explain.

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

Ephraim has never served at the altar, unless you believe God gave a revelation stating otherwise 
for the New Testament.

Where does the Bible say Ephraim never served at the altar?  

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

Again, you are the only one I see claiming that these blessings pertain to the priesthood.  I have said repeatedly that the blessings of the priesthood are promised to the seed of Abraham, not Ephraim alone.

The blessings of the priesthood exercised through Christ as our High Priest, yes. But the priesthood 
was not specifically promised to the tribe of Ephraim.

I agree, the priesthood was not specifically promised to the tribe of Ephraim, it was promised to all the children of the promise of Abraham, with Ephriam being included in that promise.  The descendants of Ephriam were among those of which Moses said were “kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” prior to the incident with the golden calf on Mount Sinai.

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

As for the land inheritance, I still can’t figure out how “inherit the earth” will exclude the United States.  Do you believe the United States will be taken to heaven?

There's a generic land inheritance for the meek. As scriptures reveal, there are also a specific 
land inheritance for the Israelites.  

But the land inheritance for the meek obviously includes the Israelites too.  So, what’s the difference?  The United States is not excluded from “inherit the earth”.

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

You totally miss the fact that these blessings given by Jacob to his fourteen sons (after Jacob adopted Ephraim and Manasseh in Genesis 48) aren’t for the individual brothers themselves, but to their entire posterity.

You miss the fact that none of Jacob's blessings pertain to certain tribes obtaining the priesthood.

And I have never claimed that Jacob's blessings pertain to certain tribes obtaining the priesthood over others, only you have done that.  Are you missing your own "fact"?  I have always said that the priesthood blessings pertain to the children of Abraham.

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

"Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured 
possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of 
priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel" 
(Exodus 19:5–6).

Israel was to live under God's direct rule, representing His sovereignty. Just as priests mediate 
between God and people, the whole nation was meant to mediate between God and the rest of the 
world, showing other nations what it looks like to live under God's covenant. So while the tribe 
of Levi later had special priestly duties, the entire nation was intended to have a priestly 
vocation — reflecting God's holiness to all peoples (Deuteronomy 4:6–8, Isaiah 42:6, Isaiah 61:6).

Yes, so all the elders of Israel (including the tribe of Ephraim) held the priesthood prior to the incident with the golden calf on Mount Sinai.  Why couldn’t you have just agreed with me on that point earlier?

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

  This is clear from the fact that Joseph, the person, died in Egypt when he was 110 years old (Genesis 50:26), and he never left Egypt.  But his blessing was to be “a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall” and that “The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills”.  When did Joseph, the person, ever realize these blessings?

What do you believe the utmost bound of everlasting hills is?

The entire world.

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

And why was “Joseph” still given a greater blessing than all of the other brothers, with Ephraim and Manasseh being promised a multitude of posterity?

How much is a multitude of posterity?  In several censuses recorded in the Bible, both Manasseh 
and Judah exceed Ephraim (Numbers 1:27,33,35; 26:22,34,37).

Considering that the tribe of Manasseh obtained a double portion of land inheritance over Ephraim, 
what do you believe are the greater blessings Joseph received over all the other brothers?

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".

What blessings had Jacob received which prevailed above the blessings of his progenitors?  Did 
any of these blessings have to do with a land inheritance?

Would you consider the scepter not departing out of Judah as the second or lesser blessing than 
those you believe Joseph received?

We already went over that, and I answered those very questions in the other thread.  Reread that entire thread and quit trying to reboot the entire discussion.

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

So, you actually recognize and acknowledge the fact that Judah’s blessing was to his posterity, but you don’t allow the same for Joseph.  You have a double standard, and it shows (and I think I know why).

Ok. Let's analyze what you consider to be my double standard.

Would you clearly identify what you believe is the blessing of Ephraim above all his other brothers 
at any time in history and please provide scriptural support.

You are changing the subject again.  The “double standard” was because you acknowledge the fact that Judah’s blessing was to his posterity, but you claimed that Joseph’s blessing was to him personally among his family and not to his posterity.  That is clearly a double standard.

As for your diversion question, that’s already been addressed in detail in the other message thread.

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

Where do you find the Old Testament saying that?  And if what you say above is true, then why were all of the elders of Israel said to be a “kingdom of priests” prior to them breaking their covenant on Mount Sinai? 

I addressed this earlier.

Yes, above you acknowledged that all the elders of Israel were a “kingdom of priests” prior to them breaking their covenant on Mount Sinai.  So your prior statement that, “All the seed of Abraham did not have a right to the priesthood in the Old Testament” is not true.

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

From the Mishnah Zevachim 14:4:

“Until the Tabernacle was established, private altars were permitted and the sacrificial service was performed by the firstborn. And from the time that the Tabernacle was established, private altars were prohibited and the sacrificial service was performed by the priests. Offerings of the most sacred order were then eaten within the curtains surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle in the wilderness and offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten throughout the camp of Israel.”

In the Old Testament, several individuals set up altars for worship. Here are a few notable examples:

Abraham: He built several altars to the Lord as he traveled through the land. For instance, he 
built an altar at Shechem (Genesis 12:7) and another between Bethel and Ai (Genesis 12:8).

Isaac: He built an altar at Beersheba after the Lord appeared to him (Genesis 26:25).

Jacob: He set up an altar at Bethel after his vision of the ladder reaching to heaven (Genesis 
28:18-19) and later returned to build another altar there (Genesis 35:1-7).

Moses: After the Israelites' victory over the Amalekites, Moses built an altar and called it "The 
Lord is my Banner" (Exodus 17:15).

Joshua: He built an altar on Mount Ebal as part of the covenant renewal ceremony (Joshua 8:30-31).

Gideon: He built an altar to the Lord after an angel appeared to him, calling it "The Lord is 
Peace" (Judges 6:24).

Samuel: He built an altar at Ramah, where he lived and judged Israel (1 Samuel 7:17).

David: He built an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, which later became the 
site of the temple (2 Samuel 24:18-25).

Elijah: He repaired the altar of the Lord on Mount Carmel during his contest with the prophets 
of Baal (1 Kings 18:30-32).

These altars were often places of sacrifice and worship, serving as physical symbols of the 
individuals' or communities' devotion to God.

From the above list, only Isaac was the firstborn. The other individuals mentioned, such as 
Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, David, and Elijah, were not firstborn sons in 
their respective families.

It’s rather ironic that you are now pointing out the widespread building of altars now in this folder (which were used for burnt offerings and sacrifices), while in the other folder you were arguing that they were not widespread and even denied they had any significance initially.  This makes it clear that the priesthood was not entirely limited to the Levites after the law of Moses, and that temple ordinances such as sacrificial offerings and burnt offerings were widespread prior to them later being centralized to the temple in Jerusalem under the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah.

Also, you need to check your list of people who you say were not “firstborn sons” in their respective families, as you would have a hard time supporting that claim for some of them.  
 

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

And in this article from the JTS site, it says: 

“It is true that the other books of Moses treat the status of the first male child less cavalierly. According to Exodus and Numbers, he belongs to God, as do the first fruits of one’s field or flock or herd, and must be redeemed (Exodus 13:1, 22:28, 34:20; Numbers 18:12-18). For a brief time before the calamity of the Golden Calf, all firstborn sons were consecrated to serve in the Tabernacle (Numbers 8:16-19). And Deuteronomy (21:15-17) stipulates that the firstborn son was to receive double the inheritance of his male siblings. But with the eventual loss of political sovereignty and the destruction of the Temple, what remained prominent and widely practiced was the redemption of the first born male of a Jewish mother on the thirty-first day after birth, if neither of his parents were a Kohen or Levi.”

Why don’t you remember that?

What double inheritance did Ephraim receive over Manasseh or his male siblings (if you include 
Jacob's other sons)?

That question has already been addressed over and over in the other message folder.  Go reread that folder.

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

If neither of the parents were a Kohen or Levi, then they did not follow how God had set it up 
for the Old Testament.

Were the parents of Melchizedek, who was the “priest of the most high God”, of Kohen or Levite descent?   Do you believe that Melchizedek did not follow how God had set it up for the Old Testament?

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

Obviously, this is Christian doctrine according to your definition:  “Put simply, doctrines are just faith-based beliefs that are spoken or printed without the caveat of them just being opinions or speculations.”

And you said "Bill Gates is not a Christian leader who speaks for all of Christianity." Your definition of doctrine didn't stipulate the part that I put in bold, but who exactly, in this day and age, is "a Christian leader who speaks for all of Christianity"?  Can you name one?

In that "electronic tattoos" link, I am not able to verify what Christian denomination the Daily 
Galaxy represents.

You didn’t answer the question (again).  Who is a Christian leader today who speaks for all of Christianity?

Also, you didn’t stipulate previously that the person’s “Christian denomination” makes a difference on what constitutes “doctrine” in your definition of doctrine, which was: “Put simply, doctrines are just faith-based beliefs that are spoken or printed without the caveat of them just being opinions or speculations.”

I’m just trying to nail down what you really believe to be the definition of Christian doctrine based on what you said previously.

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

You are obviously missing the point of Elder Packer’s statement.  What constitutes “official” doctrine is what can be verified as true by specific revelations in scripture or other sources (and revelations are true and are in accord with Elder Packer’s statement).  Speculation or a particular interpretation of someone’s statement may or may not be true.  We won’t know the answer to a lot of things until God reveals more to us.

Elder Packer isn't really trying to define what makes something "official doctrine" as you like 
CFRs for. He's more interested in whether a statement is actually true or not. This includes 
speculations or opinions. But if they aren't expressed that way, then it's not speculation or 
opinion.

Don’t be ridiculous.  Obviously Elder Packer’s statement cannot include speculation or opinion unless, through the process of time and acquiring further information, the speculation or opinion proves out to be true or false.  Otherwise, how can a person know if a speculation or opinion is true or not?

Was the New Testament Christian belief that Christ would return in their lifetime true or not?  That Christ would return in their lifetime was their speculation and opinion at the time, but we know now it wasn’t a true belief.  Even the apostle Paul expressed that view, but it wasn’t true.  He didn’t know that his opinion on that was wrong until he received further information about the apostasy of Christ’s church and other information that caused him to revise his earlier statements.  That’s the process that happens all the time with apostles and prophets.  They base their views on the truth that is made available to them at the time, and often those views may be revised later on as more information becomes available.

It's easy to see truth (or not) in hindsight.  A true statement can’t always be identified as such until all the information is available, and speculation and opinion (by definition) is always based on partial information.

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

How do you determine if a particular teaching is either true or false?

... if it has scriptural support.  That’s why I view the LDS doctrines of a Heavenly Mother as false.

You mean, that’s why the LDS doctrines of a Heavenly Mother is true since the Bible teaches that we are all the “offspring of God”, and Paul’s audience would have definitely understood Paul to be teaching that very thing (according to you).  Thus, according to your own view that doctrine is biblical.

And, the “homoousious” Father and Son that is the most official doctrine of Christianity (based on the Nicene creed) must be false, because it has no scriptural support.  The same goes for the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo (creation out of nothing), or the modern Christian teaching that the Bible is the only word of God, or that God really didn’t create man in his own image and likeness, and that there is such a thing as the “nature of angels” and angels have wings!

Is that really where you want to go with this discussion?

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

It's very dangerous to be taught that some being (an eternal intelligence?) became a spirit child 
of his heavenly parents, then become a man, got married, then became a God (the LDS Jesus became 
a God in the spirit world without becoming a man and getting married), then became Heavenly Father 
of our Earth, and then you ended up worshipping that being.

That would be a foreign god.

CFR for where official LDS doctrine teaches that God was “a spirit child of heavenly parents”.   You are speculating and giving your opinion, not official LDS doctrine.  (And note the key word, “official”).

As for foreign gods, what is more dangerous and foreign to the Bible than the “homoousious” Father and Son? 

Furthermore, if, as you do, have beliefs about God that aren’t found in the Bible at all, who are you to complain about Latter-day Saint teachings that may not be found in the Bible, but may be based on additional revelation from God?

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

 Is the word “homoousious” that the Roman emperor Constantine inserted into the Nicene Creed, making Jesus “homoousious” with his Father, true or false?  How would you determine that?  And if it is false, how many people have been led astray by believing it?

It's good to see that you believe false teachings lead people astray but you haven't admitted any 
false teachings in LDS publications or General Conference talks.

I don't know what Constantine meant by that term but I understand there are various interpretations.  
I didn't have anything else to add from what I wrote in other threads.

You at least acknowledged before that the trinitarian idea of a “homoousious” Father and Son wasn’t biblical.  Do you believe that unbiblical doctrine is leading people astray?

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

Extremes are all throughout scripture.  Jesus says "the first shall be last, and the last shall be first" (Matthew 19:30, 20:16), he also taught the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25), and Paul taught the resurrection of the just and unjust (Acts 24:15).  But none of those statements address what happens to those people who are in between.  Not everyone can be the very first, nor can everyone be the very last.  And, exactly how much doing good to others does it take to be a “sheep”, and how much neglect does it take to be a “goat”?

And Revelation 20:4-6 is definitely about the two extremes. 

I don't see a sheep that does not have eternal life (John 10:27-28).  

Actually, in John 10:27-28, Jesus teaches that “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me”.  It doesn’t say that all sheep follow him and have eternal life as you suggest above.  Scripturally speaking, some sheep go astray, and some get lost. 

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

Then we have the passage in Matthew.

"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the 
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world … And these shall go away into everlasting 
punishment: but the righteous into life eternal" (Matthew 25:34, 46).

Talk about extremes.

Yes, that was the point.

On 11/3/2025 at 11:45 AM, theplains said:

On 10/26/2025 at 5:38 PM, InCognitus said:

As I said above, Paul was indeed teaching them about the true God, and Paul taught that we are all the offspring of God.  

Which of the Corinthian gods was Paul teaching was the true God?

This is a revealing question.  This tells me that you think Paul was teaching about pagan gods when he taught the Athenians that we are all the offspring of God in Acts 17:28-29, because you can’t accept the Biblical fact that we are all God’s offspring.  Paul was teaching about the true God of the Bible in those verses.  Paul would have known how his Greek audience would understood his teaching, and the teaching that we are all the same kind of being as God was essential to his overall argument, which was that it is foolish to worship gods of stone or silver or gold, because we are not stone or silver or gold.  It was a true teaching about the God of the Bible.   Why do you reject that true teaching?

Furthermore, this causes me to wonder about your perceived purpose for posting on this board.  If you believe you are trying to lead us away from the so-called false teachings of “Mormonism” and to follow the true God of the Bible, you are doing a horrible job of that because you yourself aren’t following the Bible by rejecting this very teaching of the Bible.  If you wish to persuade us that your beliefs are true and ours are not, then why can’t you offer any reasonable answer as to how we should understand Paul’s duplicity and bait and switch tactics to the Athenians when he taught them that we are all the very génos of God, the very same kind of being as God, his offspring? 

You acknowledged how Paul’s pagan audience might have understood his teaching (“’offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction… like that which occurs between male and female”), even though you deny that Paul was implying that there is a Heavenly Mother and you don't believe we are really the offspring of God.  How do you reconcile this?

This is a core principle and changes everything about how we view our relationship with God.  How are you going to convince us to reject Paul’s teaching and accept yours instead, if you can’t reconcile your beliefs with this teaching of the Bible and explain why Paul would lie to his audience about our relationship to God?

[theplains]

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

You are mixing the word meanings.  Both Paul and Joseph Smith are borrowing the comparison of heavenly bodies (the sun, moon, and stars) to the degrees of glory in the resurrection.  They are not saying the moon is the earth, but terrestrial is the name given by God to one of the degrees of glory, just as celestial and telestial are assigned to the others.

The early Christian Origen (185-254 AD) spoke of these comparisons and explains it quite well.  He wrote:

“... Our understanding of the passage indeed is, that the apostle, wishing to describe the great difference among those who rise again in glory, i.e., of the saints, borrowed a comparison from the heavenly bodies, saying, ‘One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars.’ And wishing again to teach us the differences among those who shall come to the resurrection,

Thanks for that article.  Origen doesn't add telestial like Joseph Smith did when he retranslated 
the biblical passage.

Do all heavenly beings inherit the same glory like Doctrine and Covenants 129:1-3 says?
 

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes and no.  Obviously, the moon is a celestial body (in the sky) in the vernacular of Joseph Smith’s day, and he would have recognized it as such.  But scripture uses symbolism and metaphors all the time to portray true principles and concepts.  So, I have no problem at all with the Lord giving names to the three kingdoms of glory utilizing existing words as symbolic representation of the degrees of glory.

In what way would a star like Antares (much bigger than our Sun but classified as a telestial 
object) have a lesser glory than the Sun or Moon?  Is this relative to how bright they appear 
in the sky to our natural eyes? 

Is the glory of the star Kolob (telestial) lesser or greater than the Moon (terrestrial) and the 
Sun (celestial) and why?
 

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

How people interpret the verse today is beside the point.  The point was that God doesn’t communicate to us using his full scientific understanding of the universe.  Instead, he teaches us using principles and concepts we can understand from our earthly perspective.  And, if people don’t understand that teaching method they can really mess up on their modern interpretations of the Bible (like thinking the Bible teaches that there is a flat earth).

That would explain why some LDS leaders of the past go beyond only focusing on our Earth as their 
perspective and teach an infinite regression of Gods.
 

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

You are avoiding the point.  I have already pointed out that that the priesthood duties were primarily limited to the Levites after the incident with the golden calf.  But Ephriam (the person) lived prior to the incident with the golden calf.  So, I’ll repeat what I said last time: you are completely wrong to assert that Ephraim (the person) did not hold the priesthood, and the same goes for Reuben or any of the other brothers.  You have nothing to support that assertion.

Apart from some individuals who built altars (beginning with Noah), the Bible does not specifically 
inform us that they held the Melchizedek priesthood or if that priesthood was known by another name.  
LDS canon, in Doctrine and Covenants, refers to it as the Holy Priesthood (84:6).

Moses 5:5 implies that Adam built an altar to offer sacrifices but again it doesn't classify if 
that priesthood had a name.

Doctrine and Covenants 84 mentions how this priesthood (the Holy Priesthood) extended from Moses 
all the way back to Adam through Abel.  Seth is not mentioned for some reason.

Verse 16 is a little tricky.

"And from Enoch to Abel, who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the priesthood 
by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man".

Apparently it could not be traced to anyone else between Enoch going back to Abel.

It's unclear if both Cain and Abel had the Holy Priesthood. If they did, Cain probably lost it 
when he killed Abel.  Oddly enough, Seth is not mentioned or that Abel had children and then 
ordained one of them (to follow in the lineage of the fathers). We don't see that Adam ordains 
Seth either.  The priesthood is only traced back to Adam through Abel.

Maybe the part about Cain's conspiracy should have be rewritten as "by the conspiracy of his 
brothers and sisters (Moses 5:29-31).

Verses 14-15,17 says this priesthood (the Holy Priesthood) extends in all generations through the 
[literal] lineage of their fathers but then a later verse says this higher priesthood (the Holy 
Priesthood) was taken away and replaced with a lesser priesthood.

"Which priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning 
of days or end of years".

If this applies only to our Earth, then the priesthood has a beginning  - with Adam's creation. 
If this applies to all of creation everywhere and is really without beginning of days, then it 
exists eternally with uncreated eternal intelligences, even before a man becomes the God and 
Heavenly Father of our Earth.  Someone would eventually ordain this man to the Holy Priesthood 
before he became a God.

Verse 28 says Moses was baptized when he was only 8 days old but doesn't identify who did the 
baptism or why water baptism was necessary for a child under 8 years of age.

Verse 32 seems to be a picture of the future, with Mount Zion being the New Jerusalem to be built 
in Jackson County, Missouri (verse 2).

"And the sons of Moses and of Aaron shall be filled with the glory of the Lord, upon Mount Zion 
in the Lord's house, whose sons are ye; and also many whom I have called and sent forth to build 
up my church".

The "many" other apparently includes Gentiles who are converted and join the LDS Church.

Somehow the LDS Church was able to identify some of its members as sons of Moses and Aaron in 
September of 1832 (when section 84 was written) even though patriarchal blessings, including 
lineage declarations, would not happen begin to happen until Joseph Smith Sr. was ordained the 
first Patriarch in December 1833.  

And then we have this seminary teaching: 

"The great majority of those who have come into the Church are Ephraimites. It is the exception 
to find one of any other tribe, unless it is of Manasseh" (Religion 43-431 – Doctrines of the 
Gospel Student Manual, Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, volume 3).

Apparently this is not correct since we would have to add exceptions for those Latter-day Saints 
who supposedly descended through Moses and/or Aaron.

Verse 6 says Moses was ordained to the Holy Priesthood under the hand of his father-in-law Jethro, 
but Jethro was a pagan priest.  He didn't even know who the true God was until after the exodus 
out of Egypt (Exodus 18:1-11). Exodus 18:12 mentions the one and only time Jethro would offer a 
burnt offering and sacrifices to his newly-discovered God.  

Doctrine and Covenants 84:7-13 mentions that it was Caleb (another pagan priest by extension) who 
ordained Jethro and includes some other unknown characters.

7 And Jethro received it under the hand of Caleb;
8 And Caleb received it under the hand of Elihu;
9 And Elihu under the hand of Jeremy;
10 And Jeremy under the hand of Gad;
11 And Gad under the hand of Esaias;
12 And Esaias received it under the hand of God.
13 Esaias also lived in the days of Abraham, and was blessed of him

It doesn't indicate who ordained Melchizedek or why Abraham would bless some unknown Esaias.
  
The Bible, specifically the Book of Hebrews, states that Melchizedek was "without father or mother, 
without genealogy," but the interpretation of this is debated. Some scholars believe this means 
there is simply no record of his parents, while others interpret it to mean he was a divine or 
supernatural being, such as a manifestation of Christ, or that the phrase is symbolic of his 
priesthood not being based on lineage.

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

What priesthood was it if not the Melchizedek priesthood?  Clearly Melchizedek held that same priesthood.  He was the priest of the most high God.  So, what priesthood did Ephraim and his brothers hold, if not the same priesthood as held by Melchizedek?

Melchizedek is referred to as a priest of the most high God but Abraham never was. 
 
In the New Testament, only Christ is ever referred to as being a priest after the order of Melchizedek 
(Hebrews 7:16).

Before it was renamed the "Melchizedek Priesthood", it was apparently known as the "Holy Priesthood, 
after the Order of the Son of God."  Doctrine and Covenants 107:3-4 says the name was changed to 
avoid the too frequent repetition of the name of Deity.

I'm not even sure what priestly duties would ever constitute "too frequent repetition" of God's 
name.
 

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Again, you keep wanting to jump to the point after Israel breaks their covenant in the incident with the golden calf.  Why do you keep trying to avoid the period of history when Ephriam lived?

You've said that Ephraim and all of Joseph's brothers held the priesthood but you never really 
explain how the priesthood manifests itself in Ephraim's history in the Old and New Testaments.  
As a seminary manual teaches, priesthood is one of the responsibilities of having the birthright.  
See below.
 

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Prior to the incident with the golden calf, Moses referred to all the elders of Israel as a “kingdom of priests, and an holy nation”.  The descendants of Ephraim would have been among those elders of Israel.

This has its fulfillment in the New Testament; where women are included in the royal priesthood 
of believers.
 

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

So I’ll ask the same question again (referring back to what you said in your prior post):  What exactly is “the way the LDS Church has interpreted things for Ephraim” that precludes Jesus (who was of the linage of Judah) from becoming the great High Priest?  Please explain.

Here is the specific seminary teaching I am referring to:

Point out that Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 contain the patriarchal blessings given to the twelve 
sons (or tribes) of Jacob (Israel). Read and discuss part of the blessing given to Joseph as 
recorded in Deuteronomy 33:17. 

List the following symbols on the chalkboard, and explain them:

1. Firstling = firstborn
2. Bullock = domestic ox
3. Unicorn = wild ox
4. Horns = power
5. Pushing the people = gathering Israel

This verse is being fulfilled in this, the last dispensation, as Joseph steps forward to claim 
his birthright as the firstborn son, which includes the responsibility of the priesthood. It is 
by the power of the priesthood that Israel will be gathered and that the saving ordinances will 
be administered under the direction of the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh).

Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel – Teacher Manual, chapter 21, page 76.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32499_eng.pdf
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel/chapter-21?lang=eng

Based on the seminary manual, the responsibility of the priesthood is forwarded to Joseph, later 
to Ephraim. The birthright, with the responsibility of the priesthood, does not fall on any of 
Jacob's other sons.

However, in the Old Testament, God chose the Levites over the firstborn of Israel (Numbers 3:12).  
The responsibility of the priesthood (included in the birthright) does not fall upon Ephraim.

As I mentioned before in the other thread, the LDS Church does not understand the meaning of 
Deuteronomy 33:17.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Push" is a reference to gore.

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

The passage is not teaching what the church believes in Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel 
- Teacher Manual.

Another example of how the LDS Church misunderstands this "push" is found in Religion 327 – Pearl 
of Great Price Student manual, page 172.

"For example, the posterity of Jacob's (Israel’s) son Joseph were promised a special land beyond 
Canaan where they would "push the people together to the ends of the earth" (Deuteronomy 33:17; 
see verses 13–17; see also Genesis 49:22–26). This prophecy refers to the Western Hemisphere".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35852_eng-the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018_8.25.17_FINAL.pdf

The prophecy in Deuteronomy is not referring to people being gathered into the Western Hemisphere, 
the land of Zion.

Other related things taught in Religion 430-431 Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual:

"It is essential in this dispensation that Ephraim stand in his place at the head, exercising the 
birthright in Israel which was given to him by direct revelation. Therefore, Ephraim must be 
gathered first to prepare the way, through the gospel and the priesthood, for the rest of the 
tribes of Israel when the time comes for them to be gathered to Zion. The great majority of those 
who have come into the Church are Ephraimites. It is the exception to find one of any other tribe, 
unless it is of Manasseh.

It is Ephraim, today, who holds the priesthood. t is with Ephraim that the Lord has made covenant 
and has revealed the fulness of the everlasting gospel. It is Ephraim who is building temples and 
performing the ordinances in them for both the living and for the dead. When the ‘lost tribes' 
come—and it will be a most wonderful sight and a marvelous thing when they do come to Zion—in 
fulfilment of the promises made through Isaiah and Jeremiah, they will have to receive the crowning 
blessings from their brother Ephraim, the ‘firstborn' in Israel" (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 
3:252–53)".

You still never show how Ephraim exercised his birthright authority, where priesthood is a 
responsibility according to the seminary manual, in the Old Testament.

I think you said all the sons of Jacob held the priesthood too but you never show how, except for
Levi, the other sons exercised their priesthood in the Old Testament.  

Do you believe that all of Jacob's sons possessed the birthright, which included the responsibility 
of the priesthood, as taught in the seminary manual?

Jesus was not precluded from being the High Priest.

"If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the 
law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, 
and not be called after the order of Aaron?"

"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law".

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning 
priesthood".

"For the [Mosaic] law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, 
which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore".
 

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Where does the Bible say Ephraim never served at the altar?

The tribe of Ephraim does not serve as priests in the tabernacle or temple at Jerusalem.  See 
Exodus 28 and Numbers 3.
 

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

The entire world.

This was in reply to what I asked in my last post - "What do you believe the utmost bound of 
everlasting hills is?"

Joseph Fielding Smith said in Doctrines of Salvation, "In an epistle issued by the First Presidency 
in October, 1852, the following appears: The invitation is to all, of every nation, kindred and 
tongue, who will believe, repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the 
laying on of hands, Come home: come to the land of Joseph, to the valleys of Ephraim".

Where is this land and the valleys of Ephraim?
 

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

It’s rather ironic that you are now pointing out the widespread building of altars now in this folder (which were used for burnt offerings and sacrifices), while in the other folder you were arguing that they were not widespread and even denied they had any significance initially.  This makes it clear that the priesthood was not entirely limited to the Levites after the law of Moses, and that temple ordinances such as sacrificial offerings and burnt offerings were widespread prior to them later being centralized to the temple in Jerusalem under the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah.

The scripture specifically mentions that Moses sent "young men of the children of Israel" to offer 
the sacrifices (Exodus 24:5), and it doesn't explicitly state that these young men were the 70 
elders. The elders were present as witnesses to the covenant ceremony, but the text does not 
specify their direct involvement in the sacrificial offerings.

Also, there is no specific name given to the type of priesthood these elders or the young men held.  
Subsequently, the men who served in the Mosaic Law were not of the order of Melchizedek.
 

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Were the parents of Melchizedek, who was the “priest of the most high God”, of Kohen or Levite descent?   Do you believe that Melchizedek did not follow how God had set it up for the Old Testament?

Melchizedek is not some pattern that God set up for several men throughout the ages.

As mentioned earlier, some interpret the scripture to mean Melchizedek had neither father nor 
mother.

The 70 elders who accompanied Moses on Mount Sinai were chosen by Moses himself, as directed by 
the Lord (Numbers 11:16-17).  

The concept of a group of seventy leaders does have a historical presence in Jewish tradition, 
particularly with the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was an assembly of seventy-one elders, which 
included a president, and it functioned as the supreme council and tribunal during the time of 
the Second Temple and later. This body was responsible for religious, legal, and political matters.

While the Sanhedrin is not a direct continuation of the seventy elders appointed by Moses, it 
reflects a similar structure of leadership and governance within the Jewish community.

But the LDS Church has continued, not only with the Seventy, but with quorums of the Seventy.

In Exodus 24:1, the Lord instructs Moses to bring Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders 
of Israel to worship from afar.  In Numbers 11:24-25, Moses follows the Lord's instructions and 
gathers the seventy elders around the tabernacle. The Lord comes down in a cloud, speaks to Moses, 
and takes of the spirit upon him, giving it to the seventy elders. When the spirit rests upon 
them, they prophesy.

As far as I know, the LDS groups of Seventies do not prophesy as those in the Old Testament.

There is no specific name given to the type of priesthood the Old Testament 70 elders held.  You 
cannot arbitrarily assign the Melchizedek priesthood to them using the Bible as your guide.   

I understand that extra scripture has been supposedly revealed to Joseph Smith, opening up a swath 
of people who held the Melchizedek priesthood (Doctrine and Covenants 84). 

But strangely enough, even that section does not specifically mention Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, his 
brothers, Ephraim or Manasseh holding the Melchizedek priesthood.  Instead, it mentions some 
unknown biblical individuals (Caleb, Elihu, Gad, Jeremy, Esaias).  There is no genealogical 
connection between Abraham and Esaias; Abraham did not receive priesthood from his father but is 
rather believed to have received it under Melchizedek (not "in the lineage of the fathers" either).

Where verses 14-15 mention "in the lineage of the fathers", it is not really clear if Jethro is 
the son of Caleb, or if Caleb is the son of Elihu, etc.  But it is clear that Esaias is not the 
father of Abraham.  But if that lineage (Esaias down through Jethro) is father to son, then 
apparently a whole group of descendants outside of Abraham's lineage held the Higher Priesthood.

While Melchizedek is mentioned, it doesn't identify which of Noah sons Abraham is claiming his 
priesthood through.

If we go to the Pearl of Great Price, it says the priesthood was conferred upon Abraham from the 
fathers.  

"It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of 
time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present 
time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through 
the fathers unto me" (Abraham 1:3).

While it doesn't here identify the individual who conferred it upon Abraham, it does show that 
the priesthood is associated with the right of the firstborn.  This would presume that he was 
older than his brothers Nahor and Haran. The church's seminary manual says Ephraim would exercise 
the right of the firstborn, of which priesthood is a responsibility.

The birthright is also associated with priesthood in Religion 327 – Pearl of Great Price Student 
Manual, page 172.  It teaches that Ephraim was Joseph's birthright son, Joseph Smith was a pure 
Ephraimite, and identifies the Western Hemisphere as the place of gathering so the other tribes 
could receive blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant by the hands of the children of Ephraim. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35852_eng-the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018_8.25.17_FINAL.pdf

I think it's believed that the Melchizedek Priesthood was effectively withheld from the Israelites 
during the time of Moses after the incident of the golden calf, as described in Exodus 32, so it 
did not continue in all generations like Doctrine and Covenants 84:17 says – unless the lineage 
of Esaias down through to Jethro kept the Higher Priesthood in a population separate from the 
Israelites.
 

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

You didn’t answer the question (again).  Who is a Christian leader today who speaks for all of Christianity?

Also, you didn’t stipulate previously that the person’s “Christian denomination” makes a difference on what constitutes “doctrine” in your definition of doctrine, which was: “Put simply, doctrines are just faith-based beliefs that are spoken or printed without the caveat of them just being opinions or speculations.”

I’m just trying to nail down what you really believe to be the definition of Christian doctrine based on what you said previously.

I don't accept the Pope or LDS President as someone who speaks for all of Christianity. My leader 
is Christ, his Word, and the Holy Spirit. I don't view the sermons, discourses, revelations by 
Brigham Young, or Conference addresses being the word of the Lord like Gospel Truths volume 1, 
teaches (see chapter 22, pages 328-332).
 

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Don’t be ridiculous.  Obviously Elder Packer’s statement cannot include speculation or opinion unless, through the process of time and acquiring further information, the speculation or opinion proves out to be true or false.  Otherwise, how can a person know if a speculation or opinion is true or not?

Right.  And they are led astray by LDS leaders and hopefully survive to see the errors corrected.  
Unfortunately, many have died worshipping a man who they believe progressed into becoming their 
God.

You like to use the word "speculation" and "opinion", but some LDS teachings do not use words 
which hint of such constructs.  Then you have all the teachings in books published through various 
channels of the LDS Church throughout history and its General Conference talks.   

Gospel Truth, by George Q. Cannon, on page 309 teaches "some of God's servants who bear the 
priesthood may go astray and teach incorrect doctrines".  LDS Presidents are fallible, so they 
can teach things which lead their members astray.

Likewise, the Pope is fallible.  You believe he leads his followers astray, right?
 

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Was the New Testament Christian belief that Christ would return in their lifetime true or not?  That Christ would return in their lifetime was their speculation and opinion at the time, but we know now it wasn’t a true belief.  Even the apostle Paul expressed that view, but it wasn’t true.  He didn’t know that his opinion on that was wrong until he received further information about the apostasy of Christ’s church and other information that caused him to revise his earlier statements.  That’s the process that happens all the time with apostles and prophets.  They base their views on the truth that is made available to them at the time, and often those views may be revised later on as more information becomes available.

It's easy to see truth (or not) in hindsight.  A true statement can’t always be identified as such until all the information is available, and speculation and opinion (by definition) is always based on partial information.

Paul, in his New Testament writings, often expressed a sense of urgency and anticipation regarding 
the return of Jesus Christ. Some of his letters suggest that he believed the Second Coming could 
occur within his lifetime or the lifetime of his contemporaries. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 
4:15-17, Paul speaks of those who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, which can be 
interpreted as an expectation that some of his readers might witness this event.  I interpret this 
to mean those living in whatever time Christ does come, not that Chris would definitely come in 
that era.

However, it's also clear from his later writings that Paul understood the timing of the Second 
Coming was uncertain and known only to God. In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, he cautions against being 
quickly shaken or alarmed by claims that the day of the Lord has already come, indicating an 
awareness that certain events must precede Christ's return.

Overall, he expressed hope and anticipation for the imminent return of Jesus; He also acknowledged 
the unpredictability of its timing.

If you're critical of Paul, then extend some of that critique to Joseph Smith.

History of the Church, volume 2 records the following:

"President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and 
it was made known to him by vision 3 and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of 
the circumstances attending while journeying to Zion—our trials, sufferings; and said God had 
not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; 4 and it was the will of 
God that those who went Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should 
be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming 
of the Lord, which was nigh—even fifty-six years should wind up the scene".

The fifty-six years were passed by 1891 and the Lord had not come.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-book/history-of-the-church-volume-2/volume-2-chapter-13-1

In Doctrine and Covenants 130:12, Joseph Smith prophesied that the beginning of the troubles 
leading to widespread bloodshed before the Second Coming would start in South Carolina. While 
this aligns with the outbreak of the American Civil War, those events clearly weren't an immediate 
lead-up to the Second Coming.

Likewise, even the staggering death tolls of World War I and II didn't signal Christ's imminent 
return. History has seen massive global conflicts, but none yet have fulfilled the prophesied 
conditions for His coming.

Then we have another prophecy about the temple in the New Jerusalem.  In Doctrine and Covenants 
84:4-5, it is stated that a temple would be "reared in this generation".

"Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering 
of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared 
in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be 
built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the 
Lord, which shall fill the house."

This revelation was given in 1832, and it refers to the building of a temple in the city of New 
Jerusalem, which was to be established in Zion (Independence, Missouri). However, due to 
persecution and other challenges, the Saints were unable to build the temple in Independence during 
that time.

The phrase "this generation" has been interpreted in various ways, and the prophecy is still 
anticipated by Latter-day Saints as part of the future establishment of Zion.
 

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

You mean, that’s why the LDS doctrines of a Heavenly Mother is true since the Bible teaches that we are all the “offspring of God”, and Paul’s audience would have definitely understood Paul to be teaching that very thing (according to you).  Thus, according to your own view that doctrine is biblical.

I don't think the concept of a Heavenly Mother has been formally canonized as official doctrine 
in the Church unless the 1995 "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" served as that.

Apparently the LDS leaders had all those years since Paul to finally declare it even though the 
doctrine of heavenly parents is frequently mentioned in the 1997 Gospel Principles.  It even 
mentions that they obtained their fulness of joy (associated with exaltation).

"If we passed our tests, we would receive the fulness of joy that our heavenly parents have 
received. (See D&C 93:30–34.) (page 14).

"We learned that if we placed our faith in him, obeying his word and following his example, we 
would be exalted and become like our heavenly parents. We would receive a fulness of joy" (page 15).

Achieving a fulness of joy is one of the blessings of exaltation as Gospel Principles teaches.
 

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

CFR for where official LDS doctrine teaches that God was “a spirit child of heavenly parents”.   You are speculating and giving your opinion, not official LDS doctrine.  (And note the key word, “official”).

I'm extrapolating that from the LDS doctrine of a Heavenly Mother and teachings from Gospel 
Principles.

Where do you believe she came from and how did she become a God?

Joseph Smith taught God the Father had a father before him.  So he too was a spirit child of 
heavenly parents.

Consider that an unofficial uncanonised doctrine, like Heavenly Mother was during those years 
she was not officially declared a doctrine.

If you focus only on our Earth, the LDS Godhead is made up of three Gods. But when you look more 
broadly, LDS thought includes a regression of Gods and various realms with their own Godheads—though 
these are more like unofficial doctrines.

The existence of Gods before Heavenly Father became a God is taught in several LDS sources, such 
as Gospel Truth by George Q. Cannon and Teachings of Joseph Smith himself – but you want readers 
to swap out supposed "truth" for "speculation" and "opinion".

If I accepted the idea that a man became a God and my Heavenly Father, I would be worshipping a 
figure that is foreign to the teachings of the Bible.
 

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

You at least acknowledged before that the trinitarian idea of a “homoousious” Father and Son wasn’t biblical.  Do you believe that unbiblical doctrine is leading people astray?

I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one God, consisting of three personages. They are 
not 3 Gods.  I don't know if that makes me accepting how you view the term  "homoousious"   

No God was formed before God and no Gods will be formed after him.  And this God was not once a 
man, who with his wife (more likely wives) became Gods and then  Heavenly Parents of our Earth.
 

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Actually, in John 10:27-28, Jesus teaches that “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me”.  It doesn’t say that all sheep follow him and have eternal life as you suggest above.  Scripturally speaking, some sheep go astray, and some get lost.

Yes. Some sheep go astray. But in the end Christ doesn't lose his sheep.  All of Christ's sheep 
have eternal life.  If you go astray and remain lost, then you were never really a sheep.
 

On 11/15/2025 at 6:29 PM, InCognitus said:

 This is a revealing question.  This tells me that you think Paul was teaching about pagan gods when he taught the Athenians that we are all the offspring of God in Acts 17:28-29, because you can’t accept the Biblical fact that we are all God’s offspring.  Paul was teaching about the true God of the Bible in those verses.  Paul would have known how his Greek audience would understood his teaching, and the teaching that we are all the same kind of being as God was essential to his overall argument, which was that it is foolish to worship gods of stone or silver or gold, because we are not stone or silver or gold.  It was a true teaching about the God of the Bible.   Why do you reject that true teaching?

Furthermore, this causes me to wonder about your perceived purpose for posting on this board.  If you believe you are trying to lead us away from the so-called false teachings of “Mormonism” and to follow the true God of the Bible, you are doing a horrible job of that because you yourself aren’t following the Bible by rejecting this very teaching of the Bible.  If you wish to persuade us that your beliefs are true and ours are not, then why can’t you offer any reasonable answer as to how we should understand Paul’s duplicity and bait and switch tactics to the Athenians when he taught them that we are all the very génos of God, the very same kind of being as God, his offspring? 

You acknowledged how Paul’s pagan audience might have understood his teaching (“’offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction… like that which occurs between male and female”), even though you deny that Paul was implying that there is a Heavenly Mother and you don't believe we are really the offspring of God.  How do you reconcile this?

This is a core principle and changes everything about how we view our relationship with God.  How are you going to convince us to reject Paul’s teaching and accept yours instead, if you can’t reconcile your beliefs with this teaching of the Bible and explain why Paul would lie to his audience about our relationship to God?

Yes. Paul was trying to move the Corinthians away from their pagan views of heavenly gods and 
goddesses.

He was not replacing the highest Greek god with Heavenly Father or Hera as Heavenly Mother. 
Likewise for Paul preaching on Mars Hill. He did not focus on one of the false deities they were 
worshipping and re-identified that deity as Heavenly Father. While he does mention "offspring of 
God", he does not teach we are "offspring of heavenly parents".

God is able to raise up children from stones for Abraham (Matthew 3:9).  The involvement of a 
heavenly spouse is not required.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Thanks for that article.  Origen doesn't add telestial like Joseph Smith did when he retranslated 
the biblical passage.

Do all heavenly beings inherit the same glory like Doctrine and Covenants 129:1-3 says?
 

In what way would a star like Antares (much bigger than our Sun but classified as a telestial 
object) have a lesser glory than the Sun or Moon?  Is this relative to how bright they appear 
in the sky to our natural eyes? 

Is the glory of the star Kolob (telestial) lesser or greater than the Moon (terrestrial) and the 
Sun (celestial) and why?
 

That would explain why some LDS leaders of the past go beyond only focusing on our Earth as their 
perspective and teach an infinite regression of Gods.
 

Apart from some individuals who built altars (beginning with Noah), the Bible does not specifically 
inform us that they held the Melchizedek priesthood or if that priesthood was known by another name.  
LDS canon, in Doctrine and Covenants, refers to it as the Holy Priesthood (84:6).

Moses 5:5 implies that Adam built an altar to offer sacrifices but again it doesn't classify if 
that priesthood had a name.

Doctrine and Covenants 84 mentions how this priesthood (the Holy Priesthood) extended from Moses 
all the way back to Adam through Abel.  Seth is not mentioned for some reason.

Verse 16 is a little tricky.

"And from Enoch to Abel, who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the priesthood 
by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man".

Apparently it could not be traced to anyone else between Enoch going back to Abel.

It's unclear if both Cain and Abel had the Holy Priesthood. If they did, Cain probably lost it 
when he killed Abel.  Oddly enough, Seth is not mentioned or that Abel had children and then 
ordained one of them (to follow in the lineage of the fathers). We don't see that Adam ordains 
Seth either.  The priesthood is only traced back to Adam through Abel.

Maybe the part about Cain's conspiracy should have be rewritten as "by the conspiracy of his 
brothers and sisters (Moses 5:29-31).

Verses 14-15,17 says this priesthood (the Holy Priesthood) extends in all generations through the 
[literal] lineage of their fathers but then a later verse says this higher priesthood (the Holy 
Priesthood) was taken away and replaced with a lesser priesthood.

"Which priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning 
of days or end of years".

If this applies only to our Earth, then the priesthood has a beginning  - with Adam's creation. 
If this applies to all of creation everywhere and is really without beginning of days, then it 
exists eternally with uncreated eternal intelligences, even before a man becomes the God and 
Heavenly Father of our Earth.  Someone would eventually ordain this man to the Holy Priesthood 
before he became a God.

Verse 28 says Moses was baptized when he was only 8 days old but doesn't identify who did the 
baptism or why water baptism was necessary for a child under 8 years of age.

Verse 32 seems to be a picture of the future, with Mount Zion being the New Jerusalem to be built 
in Jackson County, Missouri (verse 2).

"And the sons of Moses and of Aaron shall be filled with the glory of the Lord, upon Mount Zion 
in the Lord's house, whose sons are ye; and also many whom I have called and sent forth to build 
up my church".

The "many" other apparently includes Gentiles who are converted and join the LDS Church.

Somehow the LDS Church was able to identify some of its members as sons of Moses and Aaron in 
September of 1832 (when section 84 was written) even though patriarchal blessings, including 
lineage declarations, would not happen begin to happen until Joseph Smith Sr. was ordained the 
first Patriarch in December 1833.  

And then we have this seminary teaching: 

"The great majority of those who have come into the Church are Ephraimites. It is the exception 
to find one of any other tribe, unless it is of Manasseh" (Religion 43-431 – Doctrines of the 
Gospel Student Manual, Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, volume 3).

Apparently this is not correct since we would have to add exceptions for those Latter-day Saints 
who supposedly descended through Moses and/or Aaron.

Verse 6 says Moses was ordained to the Holy Priesthood under the hand of his father-in-law Jethro, 
but Jethro was a pagan priest.  He didn't even know who the true God was until after the exodus 
out of Egypt (Exodus 18:1-11). Exodus 18:12 mentions the one and only time Jethro would offer a 
burnt offering and sacrifices to his newly-discovered God.  

Doctrine and Covenants 84:7-13 mentions that it was Caleb (another pagan priest by extension) who 
ordained Jethro and includes some other unknown characters.

7 And Jethro received it under the hand of Caleb;
8 And Caleb received it under the hand of Elihu;
9 And Elihu under the hand of Jeremy;
10 And Jeremy under the hand of Gad;
11 And Gad under the hand of Esaias;
12 And Esaias received it under the hand of God.
13 Esaias also lived in the days of Abraham, and was blessed of him

It doesn't indicate who ordained Melchizedek or why Abraham would bless some unknown Esaias.
  
The Bible, specifically the Book of Hebrews, states that Melchizedek was "without father or mother, 
without genealogy," but the interpretation of this is debated. Some scholars believe this means 
there is simply no record of his parents, while others interpret it to mean he was a divine or 
supernatural being, such as a manifestation of Christ, or that the phrase is symbolic of his 
priesthood not being based on lineage.

Melchizedek is referred to as a priest of the most high God but Abraham never was. 
 
In the New Testament, only Christ is ever referred to as being a priest after the order of Melchizedek 
(Hebrews 7:16).

Before it was renamed the "Melchizedek Priesthood", it was apparently known as the "Holy Priesthood, 
after the Order of the Son of God."  Doctrine and Covenants 107:3-4 says the name was changed to 
avoid the too frequent repetition of the name of Deity.

I'm not even sure what priestly duties would ever constitute "too frequent repetition" of God's 
name.
 

You've said that Ephraim and all of Joseph's brothers held the priesthood but you never really 
explain how the priesthood manifests itself in Ephraim's history in the Old and New Testaments.  
As a seminary manual teaches, priesthood is one of the responsibilities of having the birthright.  
See below.
 

This has its fulfillment in the New Testament; where women are included in the royal priesthood 
of believers.
 

Here is the specific seminary teaching I am referring to:

Point out that Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 contain the patriarchal blessings given to the twelve 
sons (or tribes) of Jacob (Israel). Read and discuss part of the blessing given to Joseph as 
recorded in Deuteronomy 33:17. 

List the following symbols on the chalkboard, and explain them:

1. Firstling = firstborn
2. Bullock = domestic ox
3. Unicorn = wild ox
4. Horns = power
5. Pushing the people = gathering Israel

This verse is being fulfilled in this, the last dispensation, as Joseph steps forward to claim 
his birthright as the firstborn son, which includes the responsibility of the priesthood. It is 
by the power of the priesthood that Israel will be gathered and that the saving ordinances will 
be administered under the direction of the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh).

Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel – Teacher Manual, chapter 21, page 76.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32499_eng.pdf
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel/chapter-21?lang=eng

Based on the seminary manual, the responsibility of the priesthood is forwarded to Joseph, later 
to Ephraim. The birthright, with the responsibility of the priesthood, does not fall on any of 
Jacob's other sons.

However, in the Old Testament, God chose the Levites over the firstborn of Israel (Numbers 3:12).  
The responsibility of the priesthood (included in the birthright) does not fall upon Ephraim.

As I mentioned before in the other thread, the LDS Church does not understand the meaning of 
Deuteronomy 33:17.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Push" is a reference to gore.

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

The passage is not teaching what the church believes in Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel 
- Teacher Manual.

Another example of how the LDS Church misunderstands this "push" is found in Religion 327 – Pearl 
of Great Price Student manual, page 172.

"For example, the posterity of Jacob's (Israel’s) son Joseph were promised a special land beyond 
Canaan where they would "push the people together to the ends of the earth" (Deuteronomy 33:17; 
see verses 13–17; see also Genesis 49:22–26). This prophecy refers to the Western Hemisphere".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35852_eng-the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018_8.25.17_FINAL.pdf

The prophecy in Deuteronomy is not referring to people being gathered into the Western Hemisphere, 
the land of Zion.

Other related things taught in Religion 430-431 Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual:

"It is essential in this dispensation that Ephraim stand in his place at the head, exercising the 
birthright in Israel which was given to him by direct revelation. Therefore, Ephraim must be 
gathered first to prepare the way, through the gospel and the priesthood, for the rest of the 
tribes of Israel when the time comes for them to be gathered to Zion. The great majority of those 
who have come into the Church are Ephraimites. It is the exception to find one of any other tribe, 
unless it is of Manasseh.

It is Ephraim, today, who holds the priesthood. t is with Ephraim that the Lord has made covenant 
and has revealed the fulness of the everlasting gospel. It is Ephraim who is building temples and 
performing the ordinances in them for both the living and for the dead. When the ‘lost tribes' 
come—and it will be a most wonderful sight and a marvelous thing when they do come to Zion—in 
fulfilment of the promises made through Isaiah and Jeremiah, they will have to receive the crowning 
blessings from their brother Ephraim, the ‘firstborn' in Israel" (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 
3:252–53)".

You still never show how Ephraim exercised his birthright authority, where priesthood is a 
responsibility according to the seminary manual, in the Old Testament.

I think you said all the sons of Jacob held the priesthood too but you never show how, except for
Levi, the other sons exercised their priesthood in the Old Testament.  

Do you believe that all of Jacob's sons possessed the birthright, which included the responsibility 
of the priesthood, as taught in the seminary manual?

Jesus was not precluded from being the High Priest.

"If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the 
law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, 
and not be called after the order of Aaron?"

"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law".

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning 
priesthood".

"For the [Mosaic] law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, 
which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore".
 

The tribe of Ephraim does not serve as priests in the tabernacle or temple at Jerusalem.  See 
Exodus 28 and Numbers 3.
 

This was in reply to what I asked in my last post - "What do you believe the utmost bound of 
everlasting hills is?"

Joseph Fielding Smith said in Doctrines of Salvation, "In an epistle issued by the First Presidency 
in October, 1852, the following appears: The invitation is to all, of every nation, kindred and 
tongue, who will believe, repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the 
laying on of hands, Come home: come to the land of Joseph, to the valleys of Ephraim".

Where is this land and the valleys of Ephraim?
 

The scripture specifically mentions that Moses sent "young men of the children of Israel" to offer 
the sacrifices (Exodus 24:5), and it doesn't explicitly state that these young men were the 70 
elders. The elders were present as witnesses to the covenant ceremony, but the text does not 
specify their direct involvement in the sacrificial offerings.

Also, there is no specific name given to the type of priesthood these elders or the young men held.  
Subsequently, the men who served in the Mosaic Law were not of the order of Melchizedek.
 

Melchizedek is not some pattern that God set up for several men throughout the ages.

As mentioned earlier, some interpret the scripture to mean Melchizedek had neither father nor 
mother.

The 70 elders who accompanied Moses on Mount Sinai were chosen by Moses himself, as directed by 
the Lord (Numbers 11:16-17).  

The concept of a group of seventy leaders does have a historical presence in Jewish tradition, 
particularly with the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was an assembly of seventy-one elders, which 
included a president, and it functioned as the supreme council and tribunal during the time of 
the Second Temple and later. This body was responsible for religious, legal, and political matters.

While the Sanhedrin is not a direct continuation of the seventy elders appointed by Moses, it 
reflects a similar structure of leadership and governance within the Jewish community.

But the LDS Church has continued, not only with the Seventy, but with quorums of the Seventy.

In Exodus 24:1, the Lord instructs Moses to bring Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders 
of Israel to worship from afar.  In Numbers 11:24-25, Moses follows the Lord's instructions and 
gathers the seventy elders around the tabernacle. The Lord comes down in a cloud, speaks to Moses, 
and takes of the spirit upon him, giving it to the seventy elders. When the spirit rests upon 
them, they prophesy.

As far as I know, the LDS groups of Seventies do not prophesy as those in the Old Testament.

There is no specific name given to the type of priesthood the Old Testament 70 elders held.  You 
cannot arbitrarily assign the Melchizedek priesthood to them using the Bible as your guide.   

I understand that extra scripture has been supposedly revealed to Joseph Smith, opening up a swath 
of people who held the Melchizedek priesthood (Doctrine and Covenants 84). 

But strangely enough, even that section does not specifically mention Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, his 
brothers, Ephraim or Manasseh holding the Melchizedek priesthood.  Instead, it mentions some 
unknown biblical individuals (Caleb, Elihu, Gad, Jeremy, Esaias).  There is no genealogical 
connection between Abraham and Esaias; Abraham did not receive priesthood from his father but is 
rather believed to have received it under Melchizedek (not "in the lineage of the fathers" either).

Where verses 14-15 mention "in the lineage of the fathers", it is not really clear if Jethro is 
the son of Caleb, or if Caleb is the son of Elihu, etc.  But it is clear that Esaias is not the 
father of Abraham.  But if that lineage (Esaias down through Jethro) is father to son, then 
apparently a whole group of descendants outside of Abraham's lineage held the Higher Priesthood.

While Melchizedek is mentioned, it doesn't identify which of Noah sons Abraham is claiming his 
priesthood through.

If we go to the Pearl of Great Price, it says the priesthood was conferred upon Abraham from the 
fathers.  

"It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of 
time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present 
time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through 
the fathers unto me" (Abraham 1:3).

While it doesn't here identify the individual who conferred it upon Abraham, it does show that 
the priesthood is associated with the right of the firstborn.  This would presume that he was 
older than his brothers Nahor and Haran. The church's seminary manual says Ephraim would exercise 
the right of the firstborn, of which priesthood is a responsibility.

The birthright is also associated with priesthood in Religion 327 – Pearl of Great Price Student 
Manual, page 172.  It teaches that Ephraim was Joseph's birthright son, Joseph Smith was a pure 
Ephraimite, and identifies the Western Hemisphere as the place of gathering so the other tribes 
could receive blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant by the hands of the children of Ephraim. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35852_eng-the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018_8.25.17_FINAL.pdf

I think it's believed that the Melchizedek Priesthood was effectively withheld from the Israelites 
during the time of Moses after the incident of the golden calf, as described in Exodus 32, so it 
did not continue in all generations like Doctrine and Covenants 84:17 says – unless the lineage 
of Esaias down through to Jethro kept the Higher Priesthood in a population separate from the 
Israelites.
 

I don't accept the Pope or LDS President as someone who speaks for all of Christianity. My leader 
is Christ, his Word, and the Holy Spirit. I don't view the sermons, discourses, revelations by 
Brigham Young, or Conference addresses being the word of the Lord like Gospel Truths volume 1, 
teaches (see chapter 22, pages 328-332).
 

Right.  And they are led astray by LDS leaders and hopefully survive to see the errors corrected.  
Unfortunately, many have died worshipping a man who they believe progressed into becoming their 
God.

You like to use the word "speculation" and "opinion", but some LDS teachings do not use words 
which hint of such constructs.  Then you have all the teachings in books published through various 
channels of the LDS Church throughout history and its General Conference talks.   

Gospel Truth, by George Q. Cannon, on page 309 teaches "some of God's servants who bear the 
priesthood may go astray and teach incorrect doctrines".  LDS Presidents are fallible, so they 
can teach things which lead their members astray.

Likewise, the Pope is fallible.  You believe he leads his followers astray, right?
 

Paul, in his New Testament writings, often expressed a sense of urgency and anticipation regarding 
the return of Jesus Christ. Some of his letters suggest that he believed the Second Coming could 
occur within his lifetime or the lifetime of his contemporaries. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 
4:15-17, Paul speaks of those who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, which can be 
interpreted as an expectation that some of his readers might witness this event.  I interpret this 
to mean those living in whatever time Christ does come, not that Chris would definitely come in 
that era.

However, it's also clear from his later writings that Paul understood the timing of the Second 
Coming was uncertain and known only to God. In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, he cautions against being 
quickly shaken or alarmed by claims that the day of the Lord has already come, indicating an 
awareness that certain events must precede Christ's return.

Overall, he expressed hope and anticipation for the imminent return of Jesus; He also acknowledged 
the unpredictability of its timing.

If you're critical of Paul, then extend some of that critique to Joseph Smith.

History of the Church, volume 2 records the following:

"President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and 
it was made known to him by vision 3 and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of 
the circumstances attending while journeying to Zion—our trials, sufferings; and said God had 
not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; 4 and it was the will of 
God that those who went Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should 
be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming 
of the Lord, which was nigh—even fifty-six years should wind up the scene".

The fifty-six years were passed by 1891 and the Lord had not come.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-book/history-of-the-church-volume-2/volume-2-chapter-13-1

In Doctrine and Covenants 130:12, Joseph Smith prophesied that the beginning of the troubles 
leading to widespread bloodshed before the Second Coming would start in South Carolina. While 
this aligns with the outbreak of the American Civil War, those events clearly weren't an immediate 
lead-up to the Second Coming.

Likewise, even the staggering death tolls of World War I and II didn't signal Christ's imminent 
return. History has seen massive global conflicts, but none yet have fulfilled the prophesied 
conditions for His coming.

Then we have another prophecy about the temple in the New Jerusalem.  In Doctrine and Covenants 
84:4-5, it is stated that a temple would be "reared in this generation".

"Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering 
of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared 
in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be 
built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the 
Lord, which shall fill the house."

This revelation was given in 1832, and it refers to the building of a temple in the city of New 
Jerusalem, which was to be established in Zion (Independence, Missouri). However, due to 
persecution and other challenges, the Saints were unable to build the temple in Independence during 
that time.

The phrase "this generation" has been interpreted in various ways, and the prophecy is still 
anticipated by Latter-day Saints as part of the future establishment of Zion.
 

I don't think the concept of a Heavenly Mother has been formally canonized as official doctrine 
in the Church unless the 1995 "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" served as that.

Apparently the LDS leaders had all those years since Paul to finally declare it even though the 
doctrine of heavenly parents is frequently mentioned in the 1997 Gospel Principles.  It even 
mentions that they obtained their fulness of joy (associated with exaltation).

"If we passed our tests, we would receive the fulness of joy that our heavenly parents have 
received. (See D&C 93:30–34.) (page 14).

"We learned that if we placed our faith in him, obeying his word and following his example, we 
would be exalted and become like our heavenly parents. We would receive a fulness of joy" (page 15).

Achieving a fulness of joy is one of the blessings of exaltation as Gospel Principles teaches.
 

I'm extrapolating that from the LDS doctrine of a Heavenly Mother and teachings from Gospel 
Principles.

Where do you believe she came from and how did she become a God?

Joseph Smith taught God the Father had a father before him.  So he too was a spirit child of 
heavenly parents.

Consider that an unofficial uncanonised doctrine, like Heavenly Mother was during those years 
she was not officially declared a doctrine.

If you focus only on our Earth, the LDS Godhead is made up of three Gods. But when you look more 
broadly, LDS thought includes a regression of Gods and various realms with their own Godheads—though 
these are more like unofficial doctrines.

The existence of Gods before Heavenly Father became a God is taught in several LDS sources, such 
as Gospel Truth by George Q. Cannon and Teachings of Joseph Smith himself – but you want readers 
to swap out supposed "truth" for "speculation" and "opinion".

If I accepted the idea that a man became a God and my Heavenly Father, I would be worshipping a 
figure that is foreign to the teachings of the Bible.
 

I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one God, consisting of three personages. They are 
not 3 Gods.  I don't know if that makes me accepting how you view the term  "homoousious"   

No God was formed before God and no Gods will be formed after him.  And this God was not once a 
man, who with his wife (more likely wives) became Gods and then  Heavenly Parents of our Earth.
 

Yes. Some sheep go astray. But in the end Christ doesn't lose his sheep.  All of Christ's sheep 
have eternal life.  If you go astray and remain lost, then you were never really a sheep.
 

Yes. Paul was trying to move the Corinthians away from their pagan views of heavenly gods and 
goddesses.

He was not replacing the highest Greek god with Heavenly Father or Hera as Heavenly Mother. 
Likewise for Paul preaching on Mars Hill. He did not focus on one of the false deities they were 
worshipping and re-identified that deity as Heavenly Father. While he does mention "offspring of 
God", he does not teach we are "offspring of heavenly parents".

God is able to raise up children from stones for Abraham (Matthew 3:9).  The involvement of a 
heavenly spouse is not required.

You certainly are a man of many words.

[longview]

On 11/24/2025 at 3:44 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

You certainly are a man of many words.

Or a master of cut and paste galore.

[ZealouslyStriving]

11 hours ago, longview said:

Or a master of cut and paste galore.

Could be- all I know is that overwhelming people with a multiplicity of words generally isn't smiled upon in the scriptures.

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Could be- all I know is that overwhelming people with a multiplicity of words generally isn't smiled upon in the scriptures.

Like Korihor, I believe it’s likely that the spirits (not the carnal minds) of many anti-Mormons are painfully aware that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the true church of the Christ, due to that fact that the doctrines of the restored church powerfully affirm that God truly is a being of perfect love, undying mercy, compassion, long suffering, and infinite and eternal spiritual empowerment. Hence the desperation to attempt to feverishly convince their carnal minds that the nagging intrusions of their persuaded spirits are untrue by engaging in incessant rhetorical battles with those who do realize that their spirits know the truth.

52 And Korihor put forth his hand and wrote, saying: I know that I am dumb, for I cannot speak; and I know that nothing save it were the power of God could bring this upon me; yea, and I always knew that there was a God.

53 But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me. (Alma 30)

Edited November 26, 2025 by teddyaware

[CV75]

On 11/24/2025 at 4:44 PM, theplains said:

Thanks for that article.  Origen doesn't add telestial like Joseph Smith did when he retranslated 
the biblical passage.

Do all heavenly beings inherit the same glory like Doctrine and Covenants 129:1-3 says?
 

In what way would a star like Antares (much bigger than our Sun but classified as a telestial 
object) have a lesser glory than the Sun or Moon?  Is this relative to how bright they appear 
in the sky to our natural eyes? 

Is the glory of the star Kolob (telestial) lesser or greater than the Moon (terrestrial) and the 
Sun (celestial) and why?
 

That would explain why some LDS leaders of the past go beyond only focusing on our Earth as their 
perspective and teach an infinite regression of Gods.
 

Apart from some individuals who built altars (beginning with Noah), the Bible does not specifically 
inform us that they held the Melchizedek priesthood or if that priesthood was known by another name.  
LDS canon, in Doctrine and Covenants, refers to it as the Holy Priesthood (84:6).

Moses 5:5 implies that Adam built an altar to offer sacrifices but again it doesn't classify if 
that priesthood had a name.

Doctrine and Covenants 84 mentions how this priesthood (the Holy Priesthood) extended from Moses 
all the way back to Adam through Abel.  Seth is not mentioned for some reason.

Verse 16 is a little tricky.

"And from Enoch to Abel, who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the priesthood 
by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man".

Apparently it could not be traced to anyone else between Enoch going back to Abel.

It's unclear if both Cain and Abel had the Holy Priesthood. If they did, Cain probably lost it 
when he killed Abel.  Oddly enough, Seth is not mentioned or that Abel had children and then 
ordained one of them (to follow in the lineage of the fathers). We don't see that Adam ordains 
Seth either.  The priesthood is only traced back to Adam through Abel.

Maybe the part about Cain's conspiracy should have be rewritten as "by the conspiracy of his 
brothers and sisters (Moses 5:29-31).

Verses 14-15,17 says this priesthood (the Holy Priesthood) extends in all generations through the 
[literal] lineage of their fathers but then a later verse says this higher priesthood (the Holy 
Priesthood) was taken away and replaced with a lesser priesthood.

"Which priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning 
of days or end of years".

If this applies only to our Earth, then the priesthood has a beginning  - with Adam's creation. 
If this applies to all of creation everywhere and is really without beginning of days, then it 
exists eternally with uncreated eternal intelligences, even before a man becomes the God and 
Heavenly Father of our Earth.  Someone would eventually ordain this man to the Holy Priesthood 
before he became a God.

Verse 28 says Moses was baptized when he was only 8 days old but doesn't identify who did the 
baptism or why water baptism was necessary for a child under 8 years of age.

Verse 32 seems to be a picture of the future, with Mount Zion being the New Jerusalem to be built 
in Jackson County, Missouri (verse 2).

"And the sons of Moses and of Aaron shall be filled with the glory of the Lord, upon Mount Zion 
in the Lord's house, whose sons are ye; and also many whom I have called and sent forth to build 
up my church".

The "many" other apparently includes Gentiles who are converted and join the LDS Church.

Somehow the LDS Church was able to identify some of its members as sons of Moses and Aaron in 
September of 1832 (when section 84 was written) even though patriarchal blessings, including 
lineage declarations, would not happen begin to happen until Joseph Smith Sr. was ordained the 
first Patriarch in December 1833.  

And then we have this seminary teaching: 

"The great majority of those who have come into the Church are Ephraimites. It is the exception 
to find one of any other tribe, unless it is of Manasseh" (Religion 43-431 – Doctrines of the 
Gospel Student Manual, Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, volume 3).

Apparently this is not correct since we would have to add exceptions for those Latter-day Saints 
who supposedly descended through Moses and/or Aaron.

Verse 6 says Moses was ordained to the Holy Priesthood under the hand of his father-in-law Jethro, 
but Jethro was a pagan priest.  He didn't even know who the true God was until after the exodus 
out of Egypt (Exodus 18:1-11). Exodus 18:12 mentions the one and only time Jethro would offer a 
burnt offering and sacrifices to his newly-discovered God.  

Doctrine and Covenants 84:7-13 mentions that it was Caleb (another pagan priest by extension) who 
ordained Jethro and includes some other unknown characters.

7 And Jethro received it under the hand of Caleb;
8 And Caleb received it under the hand of Elihu;
9 And Elihu under the hand of Jeremy;
10 And Jeremy under the hand of Gad;
11 And Gad under the hand of Esaias;
12 And Esaias received it under the hand of God.
13 Esaias also lived in the days of Abraham, and was blessed of him

It doesn't indicate who ordained Melchizedek or why Abraham would bless some unknown Esaias.
  
The Bible, specifically the Book of Hebrews, states that Melchizedek was "without father or mother, 
without genealogy," but the interpretation of this is debated. Some scholars believe this means 
there is simply no record of his parents, while others interpret it to mean he was a divine or 
supernatural being, such as a manifestation of Christ, or that the phrase is symbolic of his 
priesthood not being based on lineage.

Melchizedek is referred to as a priest of the most high God but Abraham never was. 
 
In the New Testament, only Christ is ever referred to as being a priest after the order of Melchizedek 
(Hebrews 7:16).

Before it was renamed the "Melchizedek Priesthood", it was apparently known as the "Holy Priesthood, 
after the Order of the Son of God."  Doctrine and Covenants 107:3-4 says the name was changed to 
avoid the too frequent repetition of the name of Deity.

I'm not even sure what priestly duties would ever constitute "too frequent repetition" of God's 
name.
 

You've said that Ephraim and all of Joseph's brothers held the priesthood but you never really 
explain how the priesthood manifests itself in Ephraim's history in the Old and New Testaments.  
As a seminary manual teaches, priesthood is one of the responsibilities of having the birthright.  
See below.
 

This has its fulfillment in the New Testament; where women are included in the royal priesthood 
of believers.
 

Here is the specific seminary teaching I am referring to:

Point out that Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 contain the patriarchal blessings given to the twelve 
sons (or tribes) of Jacob (Israel). Read and discuss part of the blessing given to Joseph as 
recorded in Deuteronomy 33:17. 

List the following symbols on the chalkboard, and explain them:

1. Firstling = firstborn
2. Bullock = domestic ox
3. Unicorn = wild ox
4. Horns = power
5. Pushing the people = gathering Israel

This verse is being fulfilled in this, the last dispensation, as Joseph steps forward to claim 
his birthright as the firstborn son, which includes the responsibility of the priesthood. It is 
by the power of the priesthood that Israel will be gathered and that the saving ordinances will 
be administered under the direction of the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh).

Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel – Teacher Manual, chapter 21, page 76.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32499_eng.pdf
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel/chapter-21?lang=eng

Based on the seminary manual, the responsibility of the priesthood is forwarded to Joseph, later 
to Ephraim. The birthright, with the responsibility of the priesthood, does not fall on any of 
Jacob's other sons.

However, in the Old Testament, God chose the Levites over the firstborn of Israel (Numbers 3:12).  
The responsibility of the priesthood (included in the birthright) does not fall upon Ephraim.

As I mentioned before in the other thread, the LDS Church does not understand the meaning of 
Deuteronomy 33:17.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Push" is a reference to gore.

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

The passage is not teaching what the church believes in Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel 
- Teacher Manual.

Another example of how the LDS Church misunderstands this "push" is found in Religion 327 – Pearl 
of Great Price Student manual, page 172.

"For example, the posterity of Jacob's (Israel’s) son Joseph were promised a special land beyond 
Canaan where they would "push the people together to the ends of the earth" (Deuteronomy 33:17; 
see verses 13–17; see also Genesis 49:22–26). This prophecy refers to the Western Hemisphere".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35852_eng-the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018_8.25.17_FINAL.pdf

The prophecy in Deuteronomy is not referring to people being gathered into the Western Hemisphere, 
the land of Zion.

Other related things taught in Religion 430-431 Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual:

"It is essential in this dispensation that Ephraim stand in his place at the head, exercising the 
birthright in Israel which was given to him by direct revelation. Therefore, Ephraim must be 
gathered first to prepare the way, through the gospel and the priesthood, for the rest of the 
tribes of Israel when the time comes for them to be gathered to Zion. The great majority of those 
who have come into the Church are Ephraimites. It is the exception to find one of any other tribe, 
unless it is of Manasseh.

It is Ephraim, today, who holds the priesthood. t is with Ephraim that the Lord has made covenant 
and has revealed the fulness of the everlasting gospel. It is Ephraim who is building temples and 
performing the ordinances in them for both the living and for the dead. When the ‘lost tribes' 
come—and it will be a most wonderful sight and a marvelous thing when they do come to Zion—in 
fulfilment of the promises made through Isaiah and Jeremiah, they will have to receive the crowning 
blessings from their brother Ephraim, the ‘firstborn' in Israel" (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 
3:252–53)".

You still never show how Ephraim exercised his birthright authority, where priesthood is a 
responsibility according to the seminary manual, in the Old Testament.

I think you said all the sons of Jacob held the priesthood too but you never show how, except for
Levi, the other sons exercised their priesthood in the Old Testament.  

Do you believe that all of Jacob's sons possessed the birthright, which included the responsibility 
of the priesthood, as taught in the seminary manual?

Jesus was not precluded from being the High Priest.

"If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the 
law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, 
and not be called after the order of Aaron?"

"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law".

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning 
priesthood".

"For the [Mosaic] law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, 
which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore".
 

The tribe of Ephraim does not serve as priests in the tabernacle or temple at Jerusalem.  See 
Exodus 28 and Numbers 3.
 

This was in reply to what I asked in my last post - "What do you believe the utmost bound of 
everlasting hills is?"

Joseph Fielding Smith said in Doctrines of Salvation, "In an epistle issued by the First Presidency 
in October, 1852, the following appears: The invitation is to all, of every nation, kindred and 
tongue, who will believe, repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the 
laying on of hands, Come home: come to the land of Joseph, to the valleys of Ephraim".

Where is this land and the valleys of Ephraim?
 

The scripture specifically mentions that Moses sent "young men of the children of Israel" to offer 
the sacrifices (Exodus 24:5), and it doesn't explicitly state that these young men were the 70 
elders. The elders were present as witnesses to the covenant ceremony, but the text does not 
specify their direct involvement in the sacrificial offerings.

Also, there is no specific name given to the type of priesthood these elders or the young men held.  
Subsequently, the men who served in the Mosaic Law were not of the order of Melchizedek.
 

Melchizedek is not some pattern that God set up for several men throughout the ages.

As mentioned earlier, some interpret the scripture to mean Melchizedek had neither father nor 
mother.

The 70 elders who accompanied Moses on Mount Sinai were chosen by Moses himself, as directed by 
the Lord (Numbers 11:16-17).  

The concept of a group of seventy leaders does have a historical presence in Jewish tradition, 
particularly with the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was an assembly of seventy-one elders, which 
included a president, and it functioned as the supreme council and tribunal during the time of 
the Second Temple and later. This body was responsible for religious, legal, and political matters.

While the Sanhedrin is not a direct continuation of the seventy elders appointed by Moses, it 
reflects a similar structure of leadership and governance within the Jewish community.

But the LDS Church has continued, not only with the Seventy, but with quorums of the Seventy.

In Exodus 24:1, the Lord instructs Moses to bring Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders 
of Israel to worship from afar.  In Numbers 11:24-25, Moses follows the Lord's instructions and 
gathers the seventy elders around the tabernacle. The Lord comes down in a cloud, speaks to Moses, 
and takes of the spirit upon him, giving it to the seventy elders. When the spirit rests upon 
them, they prophesy.

As far as I know, the LDS groups of Seventies do not prophesy as those in the Old Testament.

There is no specific name given to the type of priesthood the Old Testament 70 elders held.  You 
cannot arbitrarily assign the Melchizedek priesthood to them using the Bible as your guide.   

I understand that extra scripture has been supposedly revealed to Joseph Smith, opening up a swath 
of people who held the Melchizedek priesthood (Doctrine and Covenants 84). 

But strangely enough, even that section does not specifically mention Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, his 
brothers, Ephraim or Manasseh holding the Melchizedek priesthood.  Instead, it mentions some 
unknown biblical individuals (Caleb, Elihu, Gad, Jeremy, Esaias).  There is no genealogical 
connection between Abraham and Esaias; Abraham did not receive priesthood from his father but is 
rather believed to have received it under Melchizedek (not "in the lineage of the fathers" either).

Where verses 14-15 mention "in the lineage of the fathers", it is not really clear if Jethro is 
the son of Caleb, or if Caleb is the son of Elihu, etc.  But it is clear that Esaias is not the 
father of Abraham.  But if that lineage (Esaias down through Jethro) is father to son, then 
apparently a whole group of descendants outside of Abraham's lineage held the Higher Priesthood.

While Melchizedek is mentioned, it doesn't identify which of Noah sons Abraham is claiming his 
priesthood through.

If we go to the Pearl of Great Price, it says the priesthood was conferred upon Abraham from the 
fathers.  

"It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of 
time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present 
time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through 
the fathers unto me" (Abraham 1:3).

While it doesn't here identify the individual who conferred it upon Abraham, it does show that 
the priesthood is associated with the right of the firstborn.  This would presume that he was 
older than his brothers Nahor and Haran. The church's seminary manual says Ephraim would exercise 
the right of the firstborn, of which priesthood is a responsibility.

The birthright is also associated with priesthood in Religion 327 – Pearl of Great Price Student 
Manual, page 172.  It teaches that Ephraim was Joseph's birthright son, Joseph Smith was a pure 
Ephraimite, and identifies the Western Hemisphere as the place of gathering so the other tribes 
could receive blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant by the hands of the children of Ephraim. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35852_eng-the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018_8.25.17_FINAL.pdf

I think it's believed that the Melchizedek Priesthood was effectively withheld from the Israelites 
during the time of Moses after the incident of the golden calf, as described in Exodus 32, so it 
did not continue in all generations like Doctrine and Covenants 84:17 says – unless the lineage 
of Esaias down through to Jethro kept the Higher Priesthood in a population separate from the 
Israelites.
 

I don't accept the Pope or LDS President as someone who speaks for all of Christianity. My leader 
is Christ, his Word, and the Holy Spirit. I don't view the sermons, discourses, revelations by 
Brigham Young, or Conference addresses being the word of the Lord like Gospel Truths volume 1, 
teaches (see chapter 22, pages 328-332).
 

Right.  And they are led astray by LDS leaders and hopefully survive to see the errors corrected.  
Unfortunately, many have died worshipping a man who they believe progressed into becoming their 
God.

You like to use the word "speculation" and "opinion", but some LDS teachings do not use words 
which hint of such constructs.  Then you have all the teachings in books published through various 
channels of the LDS Church throughout history and its General Conference talks.   

Gospel Truth, by George Q. Cannon, on page 309 teaches "some of God's servants who bear the 
priesthood may go astray and teach incorrect doctrines".  LDS Presidents are fallible, so they 
can teach things which lead their members astray.

Likewise, the Pope is fallible.  You believe he leads his followers astray, right?
 

Paul, in his New Testament writings, often expressed a sense of urgency and anticipation regarding 
the return of Jesus Christ. Some of his letters suggest that he believed the Second Coming could 
occur within his lifetime or the lifetime of his contemporaries. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 
4:15-17, Paul speaks of those who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, which can be 
interpreted as an expectation that some of his readers might witness this event.  I interpret this 
to mean those living in whatever time Christ does come, not that Chris would definitely come in 
that era.

However, it's also clear from his later writings that Paul understood the timing of the Second 
Coming was uncertain and known only to God. In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, he cautions against being 
quickly shaken or alarmed by claims that the day of the Lord has already come, indicating an 
awareness that certain events must precede Christ's return.

Overall, he expressed hope and anticipation for the imminent return of Jesus; He also acknowledged 
the unpredictability of its timing.

If you're critical of Paul, then extend some of that critique to Joseph Smith.

History of the Church, volume 2 records the following:

"President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and 
it was made known to him by vision 3 and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of 
the circumstances attending while journeying to Zion—our trials, sufferings; and said God had 
not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; 4 and it was the will of 
God that those who went Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should 
be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming 
of the Lord, which was nigh—even fifty-six years should wind up the scene".

The fifty-six years were passed by 1891 and the Lord had not come.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-book/history-of-the-church-volume-2/volume-2-chapter-13-1

In Doctrine and Covenants 130:12, Joseph Smith prophesied that the beginning of the troubles 
leading to widespread bloodshed before the Second Coming would start in South Carolina. While 
this aligns with the outbreak of the American Civil War, those events clearly weren't an immediate 
lead-up to the Second Coming.

Likewise, even the staggering death tolls of World War I and II didn't signal Christ's imminent 
return. History has seen massive global conflicts, but none yet have fulfilled the prophesied 
conditions for His coming.

Then we have another prophecy about the temple in the New Jerusalem.  In Doctrine and Covenants 
84:4-5, it is stated that a temple would be "reared in this generation".

"Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering 
of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared 
in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be 
built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the 
Lord, which shall fill the house."

This revelation was given in 1832, and it refers to the building of a temple in the city of New 
Jerusalem, which was to be established in Zion (Independence, Missouri). However, due to 
persecution and other challenges, the Saints were unable to build the temple in Independence during 
that time.

The phrase "this generation" has been interpreted in various ways, and the prophecy is still 
anticipated by Latter-day Saints as part of the future establishment of Zion.
 

I don't think the concept of a Heavenly Mother has been formally canonized as official doctrine 
in the Church unless the 1995 "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" served as that.

Apparently the LDS leaders had all those years since Paul to finally declare it even though the 
doctrine of heavenly parents is frequently mentioned in the 1997 Gospel Principles.  It even 
mentions that they obtained their fulness of joy (associated with exaltation).

"If we passed our tests, we would receive the fulness of joy that our heavenly parents have 
received. (See D&C 93:30–34.) (page 14).

"We learned that if we placed our faith in him, obeying his word and following his example, we 
would be exalted and become like our heavenly parents. We would receive a fulness of joy" (page 15).

Achieving a fulness of joy is one of the blessings of exaltation as Gospel Principles teaches.
 

I'm extrapolating that from the LDS doctrine of a Heavenly Mother and teachings from Gospel 
Principles.

Where do you believe she came from and how did she become a God?

Joseph Smith taught God the Father had a father before him.  So he too was a spirit child of 
heavenly parents.

Consider that an unofficial uncanonised doctrine, like Heavenly Mother was during those years 
she was not officially declared a doctrine.

If you focus only on our Earth, the LDS Godhead is made up of three Gods. But when you look more 
broadly, LDS thought includes a regression of Gods and various realms with their own Godheads—though 
these are more like unofficial doctrines.

The existence of Gods before Heavenly Father became a God is taught in several LDS sources, such 
as Gospel Truth by George Q. Cannon and Teachings of Joseph Smith himself – but you want readers 
to swap out supposed "truth" for "speculation" and "opinion".

If I accepted the idea that a man became a God and my Heavenly Father, I would be worshipping a 
figure that is foreign to the teachings of the Bible.
 

I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one God, consisting of three personages. They are 
not 3 Gods.  I don't know if that makes me accepting how you view the term  "homoousious"   

No God was formed before God and no Gods will be formed after him.  And this God was not once a 
man, who with his wife (more likely wives) became Gods and then  Heavenly Parents of our Earth.
 

Yes. Some sheep go astray. But in the end Christ doesn't lose his sheep.  All of Christ's sheep 
have eternal life.  If you go astray and remain lost, then you were never really a sheep.
 

Yes. Paul was trying to move the Corinthians away from their pagan views of heavenly gods and 
goddesses.

He was not replacing the highest Greek god with Heavenly Father or Hera as Heavenly Mother. 
Likewise for Paul preaching on Mars Hill. He did not focus on one of the false deities they were 
worshipping and re-identified that deity as Heavenly Father. While he does mention "offspring of 
God", he does not teach we are "offspring of heavenly parents".

God is able to raise up children from stones for Abraham (Matthew 3:9).  The involvement of a 
heavenly spouse is not required.

I have seen your points of view on these points of doctrine many, many times throughout my life. What is the most salient point of all those you reviewed in your post, upon which hinges humanity's salvation?

[theplains]

On 11/24/2025 at 5:44 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

You certainly are a man of many words.

InCognitus and I tend to write a lot 🙂

[InCognitus]

I've had this and another post written for several weeks now, and I've been holding off on making the posts for several reasons.  I'm going to make this post anyway, partly because there's something I want to say in another thread that I bring up in this post.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

On 11/15/2025 at 4:29 PM, InCognitus said:

You are mixing the word meanings.  Both Paul and Joseph Smith are borrowing the comparison of heavenly bodies (the sun, moon, and stars) to the degrees of glory in the resurrection.  They are not saying the moon is the earth, but terrestrial is the name given by God to one of the degrees of glory, just as celestial and telestial are assigned to the others.

The early Christian Origen (185-254 AD) spoke of these comparisons and explains it quite well.  He wrote:

“... Our understanding of the passage indeed is, that the apostle, wishing to describe the great difference among those who rise again in glory, i.e., of the saints, borrowed a comparison from the heavenly bodies, saying, ‘One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars.’ And wishing again to teach us the differences among those who shall come to the resurrection,

Thanks for that article.  Origen doesn't add telestial like Joseph Smith did when he retranslated 
the biblical passage.

Do all heavenly beings inherit the same glory like Doctrine and Covenants 129:1-3 says?

Doctrine and Covenants 129:1-3 don’t say all heavenly beings inherit the same glory.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

On 11/15/2025 at 4:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes and no.  Obviously, the moon is a celestial body (in the sky) in the vernacular of Joseph Smith’s day, and he would have recognized it as such.  But scripture uses symbolism and metaphors all the time to portray true principles and concepts.  So, I have no problem at all with the Lord giving names to the three kingdoms of glory utilizing existing words as symbolic representation of the degrees of glory.

In what way would a star like Antares (much bigger than our Sun but classified as a telestial 
object) have a lesser glory than the Sun or Moon?  Is this relative to how bright they appear 
in the sky to our natural eyes? 

Is the glory of the star Kolob (telestial) lesser or greater than the Moon (terrestrial) and the 
Sun (celestial) and why?

See prior posts.  You are still falling into the fallacy of presentism. 

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

On 11/15/2025 at 4:29 PM, InCognitus said:

How people interpret the verse today is beside the point.  The point was that God doesn’t communicate to us using his full scientific understanding of the universe.  Instead, he teaches us using principles and concepts we can understand from our earthly perspective.  And, if people don’t understand that teaching method they can really mess up on their modern interpretations of the Bible (like thinking the Bible teaches that there is a flat earth).

That would explain why some LDS leaders of the past go beyond only focusing on our Earth as their 
perspective and teach an infinite regression of Gods.

Or, it’s that they are misreading Joseph Smith because of the incomplete or inaccurate sources for some of his sermons (as I explained in the other thread).

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

On 11/15/2025 at 4:29 PM, InCognitus said:

You are avoiding the point.  I have already pointed out that that the priesthood duties were primarily limited to the Levites after the incident with the golden calf.  But Ephriam (the person) lived prior to the incident with the golden calf.  So, I’ll repeat what I said last time: you are completely wrong to assert that Ephraim (the person) did not hold the priesthood, and the same goes for Reuben or any of the other brothers.  You have nothing to support that assertion.

Apart from some individuals who built altars (beginning with Noah), the Bible does not specifically 
inform us that they held the Melchizedek priesthood or if that priesthood was known by another name.  
LDS canon, in Doctrine and Covenants, refers to it as the Holy Priesthood (84:6).

Noah is first biblical mention of using altars, but obviously Noah got the teaching to do it from somewhere previously.  Sacrifices and offerings were widespread prior to the law of Moses (as you finally seemed to acknowledge last time), and altars were used in that practice.  Even Cain and Abel would have used altars for their offerings.

And clearly Melchizedek held an order of the priesthood that was separate and distinct from the Levitical priesthood (Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5:6, 10, 7:11, 17).  Thus, referring to it as the Melchizedek priesthood is appropriate and sets it apart from the Levitical priesthood.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

And then we have this seminary teaching: 

"The great majority of those who have come into the Church are Ephraimites. It is the exception 
to find one of any other tribe, unless it is of Manasseh" (Religion 43-431 – Doctrines of the 
Gospel Student Manual, Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, volume 3).

Apparently this is not correct since we would have to add exceptions for those Latter-day Saints 
who supposedly descended through Moses and/or Aaron.

Look up the words “majority” and “exception” in the dictionary.  You can even google them online.  It’s easy.

Furthermore, this statement is old.  Nowadays there are more joining the church from all the tribes.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

Verse 6 says Moses was ordained to the Holy Priesthood under the hand of his father-in-law Jethro, 
but Jethro was a pagan priest.  He didn't even know who the true God was until after the exodus 
out of Egypt (Exodus 18:1-11).

Exodus 18:1-11 doesn’t say that Jethro didn’t know who the true God was until after the exodus out of Egypt unless you also believe that God is not omniscient and that God had to learn that Abraham “feared God” and would not withhold the sacrifice of his son Isaac from him (Genesis 22:12).  “Now I know” is in these contexts are expressions of acknowledgement, not a change of attitude.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

On 11/15/2025 at 4:29 PM, InCognitus said:

What priesthood was it if not the Melchizedek priesthood?  Clearly Melchizedek held that same priesthood.  He was the priest of the most high God.  So, what priesthood did Ephraim and his brothers hold, if not the same priesthood as held by Melchizedek?

Melchizedek is referred to as a priest of the most high God but Abraham never was.

Where does the Bible say Abraham never was a priest of the most high God, or never held any priesthood?

Clearly Abraham held the priesthood, he was commanded by God to offer sacrifices.  Otherwise, the symbolism of Abraham sacrificing Isaac as an offering is not complete if Abraham held no priesthood.

This is not just a Latter-day Saint belief, it’s a widely held Jewish understanding that Abraham held the priesthood and that it is passed on to his posterity. 

See the Talmudic literature of Nedarim 32b:6-7 for example:

Quote

 

Rabbi Zekharya said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted the priesthood to emerge from Shem, so that his children would be priests, as it is stated: “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High” (Genesis 14:18). Once Melchizedek, traditionally identified as Shem, placed the blessing of Abraham before the blessing of the Omnipresent, He had the priesthood emerge from Abraham in particular, and not from any other descendant of Shem.

As it is stated: “And he blessed him and said: Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth, and blessed be God the Most High” (Genesis 14:19–20). Abraham said to him: And does one place the blessing of the servant before the blessing of his master? You should have blessed God first. Immediately the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave the priesthood to Abraham, as it is stated: “The Lord says to my lord: Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalms 110:1), and afterward it is written: “The Lord has sworn, and will not repent: you shall be a priest forever, because you are a king of righteousness [al divrati malki tzedek]” (Psalms 110:4), which is explained homiletically to mean: Due to the improper words [divrati] of Melchizedek, the offspring of Abraham shall be priests of God forever.

 

This seems quite clear in teaching that Abraham received the priesthood and that his posterity would have claim to it.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

In the New Testament, only Christ is ever referred to as being a priest after the order of Melchizedek 
(Hebrews 7:16).

Yet, there are others who are referred to as priests in the New Testament (in Christianity) besides Christ.  You know this, because we’ve discussed it previously.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

You've said that Ephraim and all of Joseph's brothers held the priesthood but you never really 
explain how the priesthood manifests itself in Ephraim's history in the Old and New Testaments.

It’s not just me saying that Ephraim and all of Joseph’s brothers held the priesthood, the Bible says the elders of Israel were priests prior to them breaking the covenant with the incident of the golden calf on Mount Sinai.

All of the elders of Israel held the priesthood prior to them breaking their covenant on Sinai.  Then under the law of Moses the priesthood was taken away from the people generally and primarily limited to the Levites after Israel broke their covenant, although the priesthood was held among the prophets of God and other specific individuals through Old Testament times.  For example, Joshua was an Ephraimite, and he took over the leadership and became a prophet to Israel after Moses, and he definitely directed Israel under the authority of the priesthood.  And many other leaders in Israel were Ephraimites after Joshua.  In the New Testament with the coming of Christ, the priesthood was “changed” and given back to the people generally until it was lost due to apostasy.  And now in the last dispensation of the gospel the priesthood has been restored again and available to all those who are worthy to receive it.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

On 11/15/2025 at 4:29 PM, InCognitus said:

So I’ll ask the same question again (referring back to what you said in your prior post):  What exactly is “the way the LDS Church has interpreted things for Ephraim” that precludes Jesus (who was of the linage of Judah) from becoming the great High Priest?  Please explain.

Here is the specific seminary teaching I am referring to:

Point out that Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 contain the patriarchal blessings given to the twelve 
sons (or tribes) of Jacob (Israel). Read and discuss part of the blessing given to Joseph as 
recorded in Deuteronomy 33:17. 

List the following symbols on the chalkboard, and explain them:

1. Firstling = firstborn
2. Bullock = domestic ox
3. Unicorn = wild ox
4. Horns = power
5. Pushing the people = gathering Israel

This verse is being fulfilled in this, the last dispensation, as Joseph steps forward to claim 
his birthright as the firstborn son, which includes the responsibility of the priesthood. It is 
by the power of the priesthood that Israel will be gathered and that the saving ordinances will 
be administered under the direction of the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh).

Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel – Teacher Manual, chapter 21, page 76.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32499_eng.pdf
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel/chapter-21?lang=eng

Based on the seminary manual, the responsibility of the priesthood is forwarded to Joseph, later 
to Ephraim. The birthright, with the responsibility of the priesthood, does not fall on any of 
Jacob's other sons.

And of course, you are taking the quote from the manual out of context.

All of what you quoted falls into section “D” of page 76 of the manual, which begins with the following:

“D. As God’s covenant people, Israel has been given a special charge and commission.

■ Read Abraham 2:6–11, and identify the responsibilities of covenant Israel. (To bear this ministry and priesthood unto all nations of the earth.) Consider Elder John A. Widtsoe’s statement in Supporting Statements D on page 58 of the student manual about our responsibility as God’s covenant people (see Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 400).”

“Supporting Statements D on page 58 of the student manual” says the following:

Quote

 

D. As God’s covenant people, Israel has been given a special charge and commission.

■ “This understanding of the promise to Abraham places a heavy responsibility upon all who accept the gospel. As children of Abraham, they are under obligation to do the works of Abraham. The waters of baptism carry with them the promise on the part of the candidate that he will conform his life to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which of course was the gospel given, accepted, and practiced by Father Abraham” (Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 400).

■ “The reasons for the choosing of a special nation to bear the Priesthood and be favored with the oracles of truth are many. It is both consistent and reasonable for the Lord to call such people and bestow upon them special favors, when all the rest of mankind rejected the word.

 

Notice that this section is prefaced by having the students read Abraham 2:6-11, verses I have referred to many times in our discussion where it states that all the descendants of Abraham have the right to the priesthood, not just Ephraim.  The promises given to Abraham in those verses include that the blessing unto his seed is that “in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations”.

And the context states this point repeatedly: “Israel has been given a special charge and commission”, and “the responsibilities of covenant Israel” is to “bear this ministry and priesthood unto all nations of the earth”, and that God has “reasons for the choosing of a special nation [Israel] to bear the Priesthood”.   None of these statements limit the priesthood to Ephraim as you keep trying to do.

And the statement where it says that “Joseph steps forward to claim his birthright as the firstborn son, which includes the responsibility of the priesthood” has the priesthood “included” under the birthright of Abraham’s seed to hold the priesthood as it is for all of Israel as the context shows.  And Ephraim’s unique birthright as the “firstborn son” has to do with him being the first to be gathered and to “push” the nations together, to gather Israel.

But what does any of this have to do with what you said about the LDS Church interpreting things for Ephraim “that precludes Jesus (who was of the linage of Judah) from becoming the great High Priest?”  It doesn’t!  All of Israel has the right to the priesthood since they are the seed of Abraham.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

However, in the Old Testament, God chose the Levites over the firstborn of Israel (Numbers 3:12).  
The responsibility of the priesthood (included in the birthright) does not fall upon Ephraim.

See what I said above.  The relative limitation of the priesthood to the Levites was only during the period of time under the law of Moses.  Both before the law of Moses and after the coming of Christ the priesthood was given to all of Israel.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

As I mentioned before in the other thread, the LDS Church does not understand the meaning of 
Deuteronomy 33:17.

And as I said previously, you only provided some alternate translations of Deuteronomy 33:17 and didn’t show that the LDS Church is wrong in its understanding.  Furthermore, I showed how the early Christians understood Deuteronomy 33:17, which is in opposition to your interpretation of Deuteronomy 33:17.  I’ll add some additional reasons for rejecting your interpretation when I post my response in the other folder (if I decide to post it, I've had it written for weeks).

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

Do you believe that all of Jacob's sons possessed the birthright, which included the responsibility 
of the priesthood, as taught in the seminary manual?

Yes, they all possessed the “birthright” to the priesthood, that birthright being that they are born into the seed of Abraham, which “Zion, has a right to by lineage” (Doctrine and Covenants 113:8) because they are of the seed of Abraham.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

Jesus was not precluded from being the High Priest.

"If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the 
law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, 
and not be called after the order of Aaron?"

"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law".

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning 
priesthood".

"For the [Mosaic] law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, 
which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore".

Since Jesus was of the seed of Abraham, he is not precluded from being the Great High Priest as you assumed.

So, I ask again, what exactly is “the way the LDS Church has interpreted things for Ephraim” that precludes Jesus (who was of the linage of Judah) from becoming the great High Priest?

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

On 11/15/2025 at 4:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Where does the Bible say Ephraim never served at the altar?

The tribe of Ephraim does not serve as priests in the tabernacle or temple at Jerusalem.  See 
Exodus 28 and Numbers 3.

I feel like a broken record…. (quoting again what I said above): “The relative limitation of the priesthood to the Levites was only during the period of time under the law of Moses.  Both before the law of Moses and after the coming of Christ the priesthood was given to all of Israel.”

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

On 11/15/2025 at 4:29 PM, InCognitus said:

The entire world.

This was in reply to what I asked in my last post - "What do you believe the utmost bound of 
everlasting hills is?"

Joseph Fielding Smith said in Doctrines of Salvation, "In an epistle issued by the First Presidency 
in October, 1852, the following appears: The invitation is to all, of every nation, kindred and 
tongue, who will believe, repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the 
laying on of hands, Come home: come to the land of Joseph, to the valleys of Ephraim".

Where is this land and the valleys of Ephraim?

Isn’t it obvious? The “land” and “valleys of Ephraim” are wherever those of the tribe of Ephraim happen to be dwelling at the time.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

On 11/15/2025 at 4:29 PM, InCognitus said:

It’s rather ironic that you are now pointing out the widespread building of altars now in this folder (which were used for burnt offerings and sacrifices), while in the other folder you were arguing that they were not widespread and even denied they had any significance initially.  This makes it clear that the priesthood was not entirely limited to the Levites after the law of Moses, and that temple ordinances such as sacrificial offerings and burnt offerings were widespread prior to them later being centralized to the temple in Jerusalem under the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah.

The scripture specifically mentions that Moses sent "young men of the children of Israel" to offer 
the sacrifices (Exodus 24:5), and it doesn't explicitly state that these young men were the 70 
elders. The elders were present as witnesses to the covenant ceremony, but the text does not 
specify their direct involvement in the sacrificial offerings.

Also, there is no specific name given to the type of priesthood these elders or the young men held.  

I’ll keep saying what I said above:  Clearly Melchizedek held an order of the priesthood that was separate and distinct from the Levitical priesthood (Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5:6, 10, 7:11, 17), and this was the priesthood that existed prior to the law of Moses until the covenant was broken and afterward it was primarily limited to the Levites.  So whatever name you want to call it, it was the same priesthood as held by Melchizedek.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

Subsequently, the men who served in the Mosaic Law were not of the order of Melchizedek.

Right, under the law of Moses the priesthood was withdrawn generally from the people and the lesser priesthood (the Levitical priesthood) was restricted primarily to those of the tribe of Levi.  But others who took over the prophetic leadership of Israel held the Melchizedek priesthood (like Joshua who was an Ephraimite). 

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

On 11/15/2025 at 4:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Were the parents of Melchizedek, who was the “priest of the most high God”, of Kohen or Levite descent?   Do you believe that Melchizedek did not follow how God had set it up for the Old Testament?

Melchizedek is not some pattern that God set up for several men throughout the ages.

But you said, “If neither of the parents were a Kohen or Levi, then they did not follow how God had set it up for the Old Testament.”  Do you believe Melchizedek was of Kohen or Levite descent?  What priesthood did Melchizedek hold?  Did Melchizedek “not follow how God had set it up for the Old Testament”?

As for your comment above, clearly there were priests “after the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5:6, 10, 6:20, and especially 7:11 which says “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?”).  The phrase “the order of Melchizedek” certainly identifies this as “some pattern that God set up for several men throughout the ages”.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

If we go to the Pearl of Great Price, it says the priesthood was conferred upon Abraham from the 
fathers.  

"It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of 
time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present 
time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through 
the fathers unto me" (Abraham 1:3).

While it doesn't here identify the individual who conferred it upon Abraham, it does show that 
the priesthood is associated with the right of the firstborn.  This would presume that he was 
older than his brothers Nahor and Haran. The church's seminary manual says Ephraim would exercise 
the right of the firstborn, of which priesthood is a responsibility.

The Jewish sources I provided previously (in my post on October 26 and elsewhere) show that prior to the law of Moses the firstborn had the duty to perform sacrificial services in the priesthood. Others in the family held the priesthood, but the firstborn had the duty to perform the sacrificial services.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

The birthright is also associated with priesthood in Religion 327 – Pearl of Great Price Student 
Manual, page 172.  It teaches that Ephraim was Joseph's birthright son, Joseph Smith was a pure 
Ephraimite, and identifies the Western Hemisphere as the place of gathering so the other tribes 
could receive blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant by the hands of the children of Ephraim. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35852_eng-the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018_8.25.17_FINAL.pdf

But, that page of the manual doesn’t say anything about the birthright and the priesthood as you associate it in your statement above.  The priesthood isn’t mentioned until the bottom of the page, where it talks about Abraham having received the priesthood.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

I think it's believed that the Melchizedek Priesthood was effectively withheld from the Israelites 
during the time of Moses after the incident of the golden calf, as described in Exodus 32, so it 
did not continue in all generations like Doctrine and Covenants 84:17 says – unless the lineage 
of Esaias down through to Jethro kept the Higher Priesthood in a population separate from the 
Israelites.

I already discussed this process above.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

On 11/15/2025 at 4:29 PM, InCognitus said:

You didn’t answer the question (again).  Who is a Christian leader today who speaks for all of Christianity?

Also, you didn’t stipulate previously that the person’s “Christian denomination” makes a difference on what constitutes “doctrine” in your definition of doctrine, which was: “Put simply, doctrines are just faith-based beliefs that are spoken or printed without the caveat of them just being opinions or speculations.”

I’m just trying to nail down what you really believe to be the definition of Christian doctrine based on what you said previously.

I don't accept the Pope or LDS President as someone who speaks for all of Christianity. My leader 
is Christ, his Word, and the Holy Spirit.

You still didn’t answer the question.  I didn’t ask you who you don’t accept, I asked you who is a Christian leader today who speaks for all of Christianity?

It sounds like nobody.

So how do you know who is following a false God, or who is leading people astray?  Are you the arbitrator of doctrinal truth and the proper interpretation of the Bible?  Or who is?  You have no right to proclaim judgement against anyone else.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

You like to use the word "speculation" and "opinion"

You were the one who first brought up the words “speculation” and “opinion”, not me.   That was how you defined doctrine, you said, “Put simply, doctrines are just faith-based beliefs that are spoken or printed without the caveat of them just being opinions or speculations.”

I’m just using your words.

That’s why I asked you about the Christian “doctrine” that Bill Gates is associated with the mark of the beast.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

On 11/15/2025 at 4:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Was the New Testament Christian belief that Christ would return in their lifetime true or not?  That Christ would return in their lifetime was their speculation and opinion at the time, but we know now it wasn’t a true belief.  Even the apostle Paul expressed that view, but it wasn’t true.  He didn’t know that his opinion on that was wrong until he received further information about the apostasy of Christ’s church and other information that caused him to revise his earlier statements.  That’s the process that happens all the time with apostles and prophets.  They base their views on the truth that is made available to them at the time, and often those views may be revised later on as more information becomes available.

It's easy to see truth (or not) in hindsight.  A true statement can’t always be identified as such until all the information is available, and speculation and opinion (by definition) is always based on partial information.

Paul, in his New Testament writings, often expressed a sense of urgency and anticipation regarding 
the return of Jesus Christ. Some of his letters suggest that he believed the Second Coming could 
occur within his lifetime or the lifetime of his contemporaries. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 
4:15-17, Paul speaks of those who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, which can be 
interpreted as an expectation that some of his readers might witness this event.  I interpret this 
to mean those living in whatever time Christ does come, not that Chris would definitely come in 
that era.

However, it's also clear from his later writings that Paul understood the timing of the Second 
Coming was uncertain and known only to God. In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, he cautions against being 
quickly shaken or alarmed by claims that the day of the Lord has already come, indicating an 
awareness that certain events must precede Christ's return.

Overall, he expressed hope and anticipation for the imminent return of Jesus; He also acknowledged 
the unpredictability of its timing.

If you're critical of Paul

I’m not critical of Paul.  I sympathize with Paul in his time and situation, and I’m pointing out the reality that prophets and apostles (in the Bible and now) are human and they try to understand things based on their limited information at the time.  That’s exactly what Paul was doing when he thought the second coming of Christ would come during his lifetime.  

And Paul totally understood this principle too, because he taught, “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”  (1 Corinthians 13:12).  

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

On 11/15/2025 at 4:29 PM, InCognitus said:

CFR for where official LDS doctrine teaches that God was “a spirit child of heavenly parents”.   You are speculating and giving your opinion, not official LDS doctrine.  (And note the key word, “official”).

I'm extrapolating that from the LDS doctrine of a Heavenly Mother and teachings from Gospel 
Principles.

Where do you believe she came from and how did she become a God?

So, are you admitting that your statement is not LDS doctrine and just your so-called “extrapolation” which in this case is just speculation and opinion?  Otherwise, the CFR still stands: CFR for where official LDS doctrine teaches that God was “a spirit child of heavenly parents”.   You are speculating and giving your opinion, not official LDS doctrine.  (And note the key word, “official”).

Given what Joseph Smith taught about God the Father as the “head God” and what the revealed word of God teaches, which is that God is the “God of all other gods”, there doesn’t seem to be room for such speculation about God the Father being “a spirit child of heavenly parents”.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

Joseph Smith taught God the Father had a father before him.  So he too was a spirit child of 
heavenly parents.

No.  Joseph Smith said nothing about God the Father being a spirit child of heavenly parents.  Your speculation doesn’t fit with the full context of that sermon or with Joseph Smith’s other teachings in the King Follet Discourse or in the revelations that he received.

In my post on May 26, 2025, in the portion that you ignored and did not engage at all, I explained the problems with the original source for the Sermon in the Grove.  And according to the Thomas Bullock notes of that sermon (the one and only source for that part of the sermon), the discussion about God the Father having a father was in the context of God the Father’s mortal experience on an earth.  His notes show that the statements about God the Father having a “father” are immediately followed by “I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him”.  In other words, Bullock’s notes indicate that God the Father’s “father” would have been either his earthly father when he was born into mortality, or that God the Father (as the head of all other Gods) would have appointed some other God to produce his mortal body in the same way that Jesus came into mortality. 

So, there is nothing there to support your claim that God the Father has a God “above” him or that he was the “spirit child of heavenly parents” as you are claiming.  The Bullock notes of that sermon indicate that Jesus Christ has a God “above” him (God the Father), but that’s talking about Jesus, not God the Father (and that’s biblical).  And the Church does not have an official interpretation of the things recorded in the Thomas Bullock notes of the Sermon in the Grove.  Consequently, your opinions and speculations don’t fulfill the CFR. 

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

Consider that an unofficial uncanonised doctrine,

It’s not a doctrine of the church at all unless it is recognized by the church as such.

You may consider speculation and opinions to be doctrines (remember, you said, “Put simply, doctrines are just faith-based beliefs that are spoken or printed without the caveat of them just being opinions or speculations”), but I do not, and neither does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Read Acts chapter 15 in the New Testament and you will see how Church doctrines were determined when there were differences of opinion on some teachings (verse 7 says “there had been much disputing”). The differences of opinion were resolved by a council of the apostles, and not by simply accepting what some people were saying was the doctrine.  Contrast that to how things are done in modern Christianity with no apostles and prophets, where everyone breaks off into their own churches according to their private interpretations of the Bible and are carried about by “every wind of doctrine”.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

like Heavenly Mother was during those years 
she was not officially declared a doctrine.

If you focus only on our Earth, the LDS Godhead is made up of three Gods. But when you look more 
broadly, LDS thought includes a regression of Gods and various realms with their own Godheads—though 
these are more like unofficial doctrines.

The existence of Gods before Heavenly Father became a God is taught in several LDS sources, such 
as Gospel Truth by George Q. Cannon and Teachings of Joseph Smith himself – but you want readers 
to swap out supposed "truth" for "speculation" and "opinion".

Again, you are the one who introduced the words “speculation” and “opinion” into this discussion, not me.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

On 11/15/2025 at 4:29 PM, InCognitus said:

You at least acknowledged before that the trinitarian idea of a “homoousious” Father and Son wasn’t biblical.  Do you believe that unbiblical doctrine is leading people astray?

I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one God, consisting of three personages. They are 
not 3 Gods.  I don't know if that makes me accepting how you view the term  "homoousious"   

But you didn’t answer the question.  The term “homoousious” was added to the creed by the Roman Emperor Constantine, and it is an unbiblical concept and an unbiblical term.  Do you believe that unbiblical doctrine (as added by a Roman emperor and later enforced by the government by other Roman emperors) is leading people astray?

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

On 11/15/2025 at 4:29 PM, InCognitus said:

 This is a revealing question.  This tells me that you think Paul was teaching about pagan gods when he taught the Athenians that we are all the offspring of God in Acts 17:28-29, because you can’t accept the Biblical fact that we are all God’s offspring.  Paul was teaching about the true God of the Bible in those verses.  Paul would have known how his Greek audience would understood his teaching, and the teaching that we are all the same kind of being as God was essential to his overall argument, which was that it is foolish to worship gods of stone or silver or gold, because we are not stone or silver or gold.  It was a true teaching about the God of the Bible.   Why do you reject that true teaching?

Furthermore, this causes me to wonder about your perceived purpose for posting on this board.  If you believe you are trying to lead us away from the so-called false teachings of “Mormonism” and to follow the true God of the Bible, you are doing a horrible job of that because you yourself aren’t following the Bible by rejecting this very teaching of the Bible.  If you wish to persuade us that your beliefs are true and ours are not, then why can’t you offer any reasonable answer as to how we should understand Paul’s duplicity and bait and switch tactics to the Athenians when he taught them that we are all the very génos of God, the very same kind of being as God, his offspring? 

You acknowledged how Paul’s pagan audience might have understood his teaching (“’offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction… like that which occurs between male and female”), even though you deny that Paul was implying that there is a Heavenly Mother and you don't believe we are really the offspring of God.  How do you reconcile this?

This is a core principle and changes everything about how we view our relationship with God.  How are you going to convince us to reject Paul’s teaching and accept yours instead, if you can’t reconcile your beliefs with this teaching of the Bible and explain why Paul would lie to his audience about our relationship to God?

Yes. Paul was trying to move the Corinthians away from their pagan views of heavenly gods and 
goddesses.

He was not replacing the highest Greek god with Heavenly Father or Hera as Heavenly Mother. 
Likewise for Paul preaching on Mars Hill. He did not focus on one of the false deities they were 
worshipping and re-identified that deity as Heavenly Father. While he does mention "offspring of 
God", he does not teach we are "offspring of heavenly parents".

You are quick to say what you think Paul was not doing, but if Joseph Smith (instead of Paul) had said “we are the offspring of God”, would you come to the same conclusion as you do above?

You keep reading your modern views back into the Bible, and we should instead consider what the scripture says on its own terms and in its own textual and historical context.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:44 PM, theplains said:

God is able to raise up children from stones for Abraham (Matthew 3:9).  The involvement of a 
heavenly spouse is not required.

Matthew 3:9 is referring to a physical creation of the body (God is able to raise up children from stones, the physical), not their eternal spirits that come from the presence of God (the same kind of being as God).  Man’s physical body was created from the “dust of the earth” (like the stones of Matthew 3:9), but his spirit came from God (Genesis 2:7).  And remember, God is the “Father of spirits”.  

And why are you so determined to eliminate women from the creation process? 

[theplains]

On 11/26/2025 at 1:49 PM, CV75 said:

I have seen your points of view on these points of doctrine many, many times throughout my life. What is the most salient point of all those you reviewed in your post, upon which hinges humanity's salvation?

Who Jesus is.

[InCognitus]

On 12/29/2025 at 2:58 PM, theplains said:

On 11/26/2025 at 11:49 AM, CV75 said:

I have seen your points of view on these points of doctrine many, many times throughout my life. What is the most salient point of all those you reviewed in your post, upon which hinges humanity's salvation?

Who Jesus is.

The Title Page of the Book of Mormon states that one of the purposes of the Book of Mormon is "to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations"

2 Nephi 26:12; "And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God".

Mosiah 27:31, "Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his all-searching eye."

Doctrine and Covenants 35:1-2; "Listen to the voice of the Lord your God...I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world..."

Doctrine and Covenants 38:1-3, "Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I AM, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end..."

Doctrine and Covenants 18:33, "And I, Jesus Christ, your Lord and your God, have spoken it." 

3 Nephi 11:14, "Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world."

Is that what you had in mind with respect to salvation?

[theplains]

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Doctrine and Covenants 129:1-3 don’t say all heavenly beings inherit the same glory.

"There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having 
bodies of flesh and bones—For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not 
flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are 
not resurrected, but inherit the same glory".

This is how I read it – there are two types of heavenly beings.  Not one, not three or more.
  
Those of the second type inherit the same glory as the first type.

There is nothing about those in the celestial kingdom inheriting different glories from what like 
Jesus possesses either.  The "spirits of just men made perfect" would seem to exclude those of 
the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms, since they do not inherit that same glory either.

The "angels-type" would presumably include the LDS Heavenly Mother. 

From whom did she obtain her resurrected, immortal body?
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

See prior posts.  You are still falling into the fallacy of presentism. 

What do you mean?

Do stars (telestial) having a lesser glory than the Moon (terrestrial) not apply to the star 
Kolob?  Or are stars that we cannot see excluded from their being assigned a telestial glory?
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Or, it’s that they are misreading Joseph Smith because of the incomplete or inaccurate sources for some of his sermons (as I explained in the other thread).

That's a convenient way to discard many LDS Church teachings of the past and present.

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

The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, 
especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him?

Evidently his Father passed through a period of mortality even as he passed through mortality, 
and as we all are doing. Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since 
there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father, until we 
come to a stop where we cannot go further, because of our limited capacity to understand" (Joseph 
Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3-volume set).

Let me know if you believe the above teachings are open to misinterpretation, are incomplete, or 
inaccurate.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Noah is first biblical mention of using altars, but obviously Noah got the teaching to do it from somewhere previously.  Sacrifices and offerings were widespread prior to the law of Moses (as you finally seemed to acknowledge last time), and altars were used in that practice.  Even Cain and Abel would have used altars for their offerings.

There is no record of temples, altars, or their remains among the Jaredites after their land was 
supposedly discovered by the Nephites.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Exodus 18:1-11 doesn’t say that Jethro didn’t know who the true God was until after the exodus out of Egypt unless you also believe that God is not omniscient and that God had to learn that Abraham “feared God” and would not withhold the sacrifice of his son Isaac from him (Genesis 22:12).  “Now I know” is in these contexts are expressions of acknowledgement, not a change of attitude.

"And Moses told his father in law all that the Lord had done unto Pharaoh and to the Egyptians 
for Israel's sake, and all the travail that had come upon them by the way, and how the Lord 
delivered them. 

And Jethro rejoiced for all the goodness which the Lord had done to Israel, whom he had delivered 
out of the hand of the Egyptians. 

And Jethro said, Blessed be the Lord, who hath delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, 
and out of the hand of Pharaoh, who hath delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. 

Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he 
was above them". 

You're right. It's an expression of acknowledging who the Lord is and what he has done, but 
there's a negative component in there too. 

Even in his admission he doesn't deny his belief in the other gods, who he regards as true 
deities.  He just puts one specific God (the LORD in this case) as being greater than all the 
other gods, whom he still regards as true gods.  He never says "the Lord is the true God and all 
the others gods that people worship are false gods".  His belief is still that all these other 
worshipped gods are true gods.

Jethro is apparently familiar with the Egyptian gods or maybe he held to the belief that the 
Midianite gods were the same as the Egyptian gods. In either case, he regards them as true gods, 
the LORD being above them, but they (those gods) were really false gods (idols).

Scripture does not reveal who Jethro believed was the highest of all the gods he believed existed 
before he learned about Moses' experience in Egypt.

Jethro is never described as entering Israel's covenant. He receives no command to worship Yahweh 
alone (unlike Israel in Exodus 20). After Exodus 18, he returns to Midian (Exodus 18:27), implying 
continued Midianite identity.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Where does the Bible say Abraham never was a priest of the most high God, or never held any priesthood?

Since the Bible does not say that Abraham was a Melchizedek or Levitical priest, I cannot infer 
that he was. Even when he meets Melchizedek, there is no biblical record of him being baptized 
or ordained by Melchizedek.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Clearly Abraham held the priesthood, he was commanded by God to offer sacrifices.  Otherwise, the symbolism of Abraham sacrificing Isaac as an offering is not complete if Abraham held no priesthood.

Who commanded Heavenly Father, when he was a man of some other world, to offer sacrifices?
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

This is not just a Latter-day Saint belief, it’s a widely held Jewish understanding that Abraham held the priesthood and that it is passed on to his posterity. 

See the Talmudic literature of Nedarim 32b:6-7 for example:

Rabbi Zekharya said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted the priesthood to emerge from Shem, so that his children would be priests, as it is stated: “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High” (Genesis 14:18). Once Melchizedek, traditionally identified as Shem, placed the blessing of Abraham before the blessing of the Omnipresent, He had the priesthood emerge from Abraham in particular, and not from any other descendant of Shem.

As it is stated: “And he blessed him and said: Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth, and blessed be God the Most High” (Genesis 14:19–20). Abraham said to him: And does one place the blessing of the servant before the blessing of his master? You should have blessed God first. Immediately the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave the priesthood to Abraham, as it is stated: “The Lord says to my lord: Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalms 110:1), and afterward it is written: “The Lord has sworn, and will not repent: you shall be a priest forever, because you are a king of righteousness [al divrati malki tzedek]” (Psalms 110:4), which is explained homiletically to mean: Due to the improper words [divrati] of Melchizedek, the offspring of Abraham shall be priests of God forever.

This seems quite clear in teaching that Abraham received the priesthood and that his posterity would have claim to it.

In Nedarim 32b, the Talmud explains that Shem (Melchizedek) lost the priesthood to Abraham because 
he blessed Abraham before blessing God.

Once Melchizedek, traditionally identified as Shem, placed the blessing of Abraham before the 
blessing of the Omnipresent, He had the priesthood emerge from Abraham in particular, and not 
from any other descendant of Shem.

Due to the improper words [divrati] of Melchizedek, the offspring of Abraham shall be priests of 
God forever.

The Gemara comments: And this is as it is written: "And he was priest of God the Most High" 
(Genesis 14:18), which emphasizes that he, Melchizedek, is a priest, but his children will not 
be priests.

https://www.sefaria.org/Nedarim.32b.6?lang=bi

Do you believe Shem is the same person as Melchizedek and that none of Shem's children were 
priests?

I don't believe that Talmudic tradition. All the descendants of Abraham did not hold the 
priesthood. From Jacob, the priesthood is formed through the tribe of Levi, specifically through 
Aaron and his descendants, who held the Aaronic Priesthood. 

The Lord declares that he has taken the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children 
of Israel (Numbers 3:12-13).  The Levites are taken for the Lord instead of all the firstborn 
among the children of Israel (Numbers 3:41). The Levites are separated from among the children 
of Israel and are given to the Lord in place of the firstborn. The Lord reiterates that all the 
firstborn are his, and he has taken the Levites instead (Numbers 8:14-18).

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning 
priesthood".

Not even Judah had the Melchizedek priesthood.  You can also add "of Ephraim; of which tribe Moses 
spake nothing concerning priesthood".

The priesthood is changed with the advent of Christ.

You can try to associate the Melchizedek or Levitical priesthood with Ephraim the son of Joseph 
or with the tribe of Ephraim, but the Bible does not specifically attribute priesthood authority 
to either of them. 

If you believe there's an "official" doctrine of the LDS Church stating that Ephraim the individual 
or Ephraim the tribe held either the Melchizedek or Levitical Priesthood, then please provide a 
source that explicitly teaches that.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Yet, there are others who are referred to as priests in the New Testament (in Christianity) besides Christ.  You know this, because we’ve discussed it previously.

In the New Testament, no individual Christian leader (apostle, bishop, elder) is explicitly called 
a priest in the later clerical sense. Instead, the New Testament applies priestly language to all 
Christians as a group.

Here are the key passages.

Christians explicitly called priests (Collectively)

1. All believers

"You yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, 
to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

"You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation" (1 Peter 2:5,9).

2. The Church as a kingdom of priests

"He has made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father..." (Revelation 1:6).

"You have made them a kingdom and priests to our God..." (Revelation 5:10).

"...they will be priests of God and of Christ..." (Revelation 20:6).

There is one explicit High Priest, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4–10).

But I understand that high priests exist in the LDS Church (D&C 107).
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

It’s not just me saying that Ephraim and all of Joseph’s brothers held the priesthood, the Bible says the elders of Israel were priests prior to them breaking the covenant with the incident of the golden calf on Mount Sinai.

The Bible doesn't specify the lineage of the seventy elders who went up Mount Sinai with Moses, 
Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu in Exodus 24. Neither does it indicate that they held the Melchizedek 
priesthood.

If you believe that is "official" doctrine, then please provide the source.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

All of the elders of Israel held the priesthood prior to them breaking their covenant on Sinai.  Then under the law of Moses the priesthood was taken away from the people generally and primarily limited to the Levites after Israel broke their covenant, although the priesthood was held among the prophets of God and other specific individuals through Old Testament times.  For example, Joshua was an Ephraimite, and he took over the leadership and became a prophet to Israel after Moses, and he definitely directed Israel under the authority of the priesthood.  And many other leaders in Israel were Ephraimites after Joshua.  In the New Testament with the coming of Christ, the priesthood was “changed” and given back to the people generally until it was lost due to apostasy.  And now in the last dispensation of the gospel the priesthood has been restored again and available to all those who are worthy to receive it.

According to LDS teachings, the Melchizedek priesthood was taken away after Moses. That is taught 
in several places – Doctrines and Covenants 84:25-26 and a seminary manual called "Duties and 
Blessings of the Priesthood: Basic Manual for Priesthood Holders" (lesson 2). 

So Joshua was not a Melchizedek priest. The focus during his leadership was on the continuation 
of the law of Moses and the administration of the Aaronic Priesthood.

Which many other leaders of Israel of the tribe of Ephraim do you believe came after Joshua? 

I can mention several notable ones. Jeroboam was the first king of the northern kingdom of Israel 
after the division of the united monarchy. Jeroboam was an Ephraimite and played a significant 
role in leading the ten northern tribes in rebellion against Rehoboam. 

Jeroboam was succeeded by his son Nadab. Both of these two kings are remembered for their roles 
in leading Israel (the northern kingdom) into idolatry.  Things did not improve with the next two 
kings, Baasha and Elah (from the tribe of Issachar).

After Joshua's death and before the institution of kings, the leadership of Israel transitioned 
to a period known as the time of the judges. There wasn't a single successor to Joshua in the same 
way that Joshua succeeded Moses. Instead, Israel was led by a series of judges who were raised up 
by God to deliver the Israelites from oppression and to lead them during times of crisis.

The first judge mentioned after Joshua's time is Othniel, from the tribe of Judah.  He delivered 
Israel from the oppression of the king of Mesopotamia (Judges 3:7-11). Othniel did not hold the 
Melchizedek priesthood. Priesthood functions during this time were associated with the Aaronic 
Priesthood, which was responsible for the religious and ceremonial aspects of the law of Moses.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

And of course, you are taking the quote from the manual out of context.

All of what you quoted falls into section “D” of page 76 of the manual, which begins with the following:

“D. As God’s covenant people, Israel has been given a special charge and commission.

■ Read Abraham 2:6–11, and identify the responsibilities of covenant Israel. (To bear this ministry and priesthood unto all nations of the earth.) Consider Elder John A. Widtsoe’s statement in Supporting Statements D on page 58 of the student manual about our responsibility as God’s covenant people (see Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 400).”

“Supporting Statements D on page 58 of the student manual” says the following:

D. As God’s covenant people, Israel has been given a special charge and commission.

“This understanding of the promise to Abraham places a heavy responsibility upon all who accept the gospel. As children of Abraham, they are under obligation to do the works of Abraham. The waters of baptism carry with them the promise on the part of the candidate that he will conform his life to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which of course was the gospel given, accepted, and practiced by Father Abraham” (Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 400).

“The reasons for the choosing of a special nation to bear the Priesthood and be favored with the oracles of truth are many. It is both consistent and reasonable for the Lord to call such people and bestow upon them special favors, when all the rest of mankind rejected the word.

Yes. This was true for the Old Testament, then the Israelites fell away. That is why God instituted 
the New Covenant.

Remember what I said previously:

"If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the 
law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, 
and not be called after the order of Aaron?  For the priesthood being changed, there is made of 
necessity a change also of the law. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which 
tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. For the [Mosaic] law maketh men high priests 
which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is 
consecrated for evermore".
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Notice that this section is prefaced by having the students read Abraham 2:6-11, verses I have referred to many times in our discussion where it states that all the descendants of Abraham have the right to the priesthood, not just Ephraim.  The promises given to Abraham in those verses include that the blessing unto his seed is that “in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations”.

And the context states this point repeatedly: “Israel has been given a special charge and commission”, and “the responsibilities of covenant Israel” is to “bear this ministry and priesthood unto all nations of the earth”, and that God has “reasons for the choosing of a special nation [Israel] to bear the Priesthood”.   None of these statements limit the priesthood to Ephraim as you keep trying to do.

Yes. We've discussed Abraham 2 from the Pearl of Great Price before.

Verse 11 says, "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in 
thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee 
a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the 
literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with 
the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal".

This for the Old Testament, while the Israelites had remained faithful to the covenant.  When they 
did not, the New Covenant was instituted by Christ.

Also, this is for literal seed, not those who are supposedly declared to be literally a descendant 
of Abraham through Isaac. This "seed" doesn't include LDS females, for they don't have the 
priesthood.

The "seed of Abraham" has more than one meaning, depending on the passage and context. 

Here are the main ways it's used:

1. Abraham's physical descendants

Most basically, seed means offspring or descendants.  God promised Abraham many descendants (Genesis 
12:7; 15:5). This includes Isaac, Jacob (Israel), and the nation of Israel. In this sense, "the 
seed of Abraham" refers to his family line by birth.

Example: "I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth." (Genesis 13:16)

2. The promised line through Isaac
The Bible also narrows the promise to a specific line: God says the covenant promise goes through Isaac, not Ishmael (Genesis 17:19–21). Later, it continues through Jacob, not Esau. So sometimes "the seed of Abraham" means the covenant people, not every biological descendant.

3. A single "seed", the Messiah

In the New Testament, the apostle Paul explains that seed can also be singular: Galatians 3:16 
says the promise ultimately refers to one seed: Christ (the Messiah). This means Jesus is the 
fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham.

4. Spiritual descendants, people of faith

The Bible also teaches that anyone who shares Abraham's faith is counted as his seed: Jews and 
Gentiles who trust God are included. Faith, not ethnicity alone, is the key.

"If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." 
(Galatians 3:29)

Those who belong to Christ are not heirs in the sense of being Gods as the LDS Church teaches 
in its interpretation of Romans 8:14-17.

The Latter-day Saints don't understand how the Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant.  In 
the Old, only Levitical priests made up the priesthood organized under the Mosaic Law. In the New, 
all believers are priests of the royal priesthood.  In the Old, one high priest would eventually 
be replaced by another high priest.  In the New, Christ is our High Priest.

Abraham 2:6 also includes a mention about their inheritance in the land of Israel, not the United 
States.  It also alters a command recorded in the Bible and widens the scope of "seed".

"But I, Abraham, and Lot, my brother's son, prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord appeared unto me, 
and said unto me: Arise, and take Lot with thee; for I have purposed to take thee away out of 
Haran, and to make of thee a minister to bear my name in a strange land which I will give unto 
thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession, when they hearken to my voice".

This is not for all of Abraham's seed. Abraham's seed is accounted through Isaac.

The Bible does not say God commanded Abraham to take Lot.

Here's how the text lays it out:

"Go from your country, your kindred, and your father's house to the land that I will show you".

This command emphasizes leaving, not bringing relatives along.

Just a few verses later, we're told: "So Abram went, as the Lord had told him... And Lot went 
with him."

The text states "Lot went", but it does not say God told Abram to take Lot.

Eventually, Abram and Lot separate because their households become too large.

After Lot leaves, God reaffirms and expands His promise to Abram (Genesis 13:14–17). God's 
renewed promise comes after Abram is fully separated from Lot.

Lot's presence appears to be Abram's choice, not God's instruction. This fits the original 
command to leave his kindred behind. Scripture doesn't criticize Abram directly, but the narrative 
implies that Lot's inclusion was not commanded by God.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

And the statement where it says that “Joseph steps forward to claim his birthright as the firstborn son, which includes the responsibility of the priesthood” has the priesthood “included” under the birthright of Abraham’s seed to hold the priesthood as it is for all of Israel as the context shows. 

When does the LDS Church believe Joseph steps forward to claim his birthright and exercise the 
responsibility of the priesthood? 
 
Where is this "official" doctrine taught?
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

And Ephraim’s unique birthright as the “firstborn son” has to do with him being the first to be gathered and to “push” the nations together, to gather Israel.

We've discussed this "push" before.  It's actually "gore", a negative.  It's not a "pushing 
together", a positive as the LDS Church believes.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

But what does any of this have to do with what you said about the LDS Church interpreting things for Ephraim “that precludes Jesus (who was of the linage of Judah) from becoming the great High Priest?”  It doesn’t!  All of Israel has the right to the priesthood since they are the seed of Abraham.

Worthy LDS women do not have the right to hold the priesthood.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

See what I said above.  The relative limitation of the priesthood to the Levites was only during the period of time under the law of Moses.  Both before the law of Moses and after the coming of Christ the priesthood was given to all of Israel.

While do you mention a "generic" priesthood held by seventy elders, you never explicitly showed 
how Ephraim the individual, Ephraim the tribe, or other non-Levites exercised either the Melchizedek 
or Levitical priesthood during the Old Testament or New Testament.  

If you believe your statement is an "official" LDS doctrine, then please provide the source.

"By all Israel", I'm assuming you are speaking of "spiritual" Israel – faithful believers in Christ.  
But faithful LDS women are not considered as being in the priesthood of believers, offering up 
spiritual sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5,9).

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

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

It seems you are determined to eliminate women from the royal, holy priesthood in the New Covenant.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

And as I said previously, you only provided some alternate translations of Deuteronomy 33:17 and didn’t show that the LDS Church is wrong in its understanding.  Furthermore, I showed how the early Christians understood Deuteronomy 33:17, which is in opposition to your interpretation of Deuteronomy 33:17.  I’ll add some additional reasons for rejecting your interpretation when I post my response in the other folder (if I decide to post it, I've had it written for weeks).

The portrayal of "push" as in a positive "pushing" together is not the negative portrayal of 
"gore" as the scripture shows. 

Let me recap briefly.

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

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

Even the seminary manual Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel – Teacher Manual, which I 
referenced before, acknowledges this with "3. Unicorn = wild ox".

But "5. Pushing the people = gathering Israel" is not explicitly teaching that this will happen 
in the New Testament.  It's actually "goring" the people.

The manual also makes mention of "2. Bullock = domestic ox".  This is not used to describe either 
Ephraim or Manasseh.

What I say is taught elsewhere:

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

 

Do you believe "5. Pushing the people = gathering Israel" and "the birthright as the firstborn 
son includes the responsibility of the priesthood" is "official" doctrine?

Deuteronomy 33:29 is where Moses blesses the tribes of Israel before his death.

"Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord, the shield of thy 
help, and who is the sword of thy excellency! and thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee; 
and thou shalt tread upon their high places".

Moses knows Israel will face fear, uncertainty, and resistance. He wants to anchor them in 
confidence in God, not themselves, and instill hope as they enter the promised land.

This has nothing to do with Israelites who would eventually put their faith in Christ as Savior 
in the New Testament.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, they all possessed the “birthright” to the priesthood, that birthright being that they are born into the seed of Abraham, which “Zion, has a right to by lineage” (Doctrine and Covenants 113:8) because they are of the seed of Abraham.

While LDS women as said to benefit from the priesthood through their male counterparts, they do 
not have a right to the priesthood.

Are you specifically referring to the Melchizedek Priesthood or do you believe all worthy male 
seed of Abraham have a right to the Levitical Priesthood?
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Since Jesus was of the seed of Abraham, he is not precluded from being the Great High Priest as you assumed.

So, I ask again, what exactly is “the way the LDS Church has interpreted things for Ephraim” that precludes Jesus (who was of the linage of Judah) from becoming the great High Priest?

The LDS Church has not interpreted things for Ephraim that would preclude Jesus from being the 
High Priest.

While the office of "high priest" is mentioned in the Book of Mormon, it does not specifically 
identify that a Nephite or Lamanite was from the tribe of Ephraim.  

The office of "high priest" is not an office in the New Testament church. You don't need more 
than one.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

“The relative limitation of the priesthood to the Levites was only during the period of time under the law of Moses.  Both before the law of Moses and after the coming of Christ the priesthood was given to all of Israel.”

Doctrine and Covenants 107:40-42 says, "The order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed 
down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to 
whom the promises were made. This order was instituted in the days of Adam, and came down by 
lineage in the following manner: From Adam to Seth, who was ordained by Adam..."

Why "from father to son" and not "from father to sons or grandsons"? 
 
Why "from Adam to Seth" and not "from Adam to Abel" since Abel is said to have been ordained by 
Adam in Doctrine and Covenants 84:16?  Is this became Abel is not recorded as ordaining anyone?

Other people were ordained by Adam, even though they were not his sons (examples: Enos, Mahalaleel, 
Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah).  Lamech is not ordained by Adam, but rather by his father, 
Methuselah. The scriptures do not specifically mention Seth ordaining anyone either. 
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

I’ll keep saying what I said above:  Clearly Melchizedek held an order of the priesthood that was separate and distinct from the Levitical priesthood (Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5:6, 10, 7:11, 17), and this was the priesthood that existed prior to the law of Moses until the covenant was broken and afterward it was primarily limited to the Levites.  So whatever name you want to call it, it was the same priesthood as held by Melchizedek.

Before it was called the Melchizedek Priesthood, it was known as the "Holy Priesthood, after the 
Order of the Son of God". The name was changed to avoid the frequent repetition of the name of 
the Son of God, as explained in Doctrine and Covenants 107:3-4. 

I don't see anything inappropriate about the frequent use of Christ's name. It appears repeatedly 
in hymns and in numerous books of the Bible. LDS missionaries even prominently display it on name 
tags.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Right, under the law of Moses the priesthood was withdrawn generally from the people and the lesser priesthood (the Levitical priesthood) was restricted primarily to those of the tribe of Levi.  But others who took over the prophetic leadership of Israel held the Melchizedek priesthood (like Joshua who was an Ephraimite).

Joshua did not hold the Melchizedek Priesthood if you follow Doctrine and Covenants 84:23-27 ("Now 
this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to 
sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God; But they hardened their hearts and 
could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against 
them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the 
fulness of his glory. Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also; 
And the lesser priesthood continued").

A "partially" or "less fully" remaining Melchizedek priesthood is not implied.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

But you said, “If neither of the parents were a Kohen or Levi, then they did not follow how God had set it up for the Old Testament.”  Do you believe Melchizedek was of Kohen or Levite descent?  What priesthood did Melchizedek hold?  Did Melchizedek “not follow how God had set it up for the Old Testament”?

We have no record of Melchizedek's lineage.  He is listed as "without father, without mother" 
(Hebrews 7:3).  But in your reference to Talmudic literature, Melchizedek is supposedly Seth and 
his children lost the priesthood. I don't believe that.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

As for your comment above, clearly there were priests “after the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5:6, 10, 6:20, and especially 7:11 which says “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?”).  The phrase “the order of Melchizedek” certainly identifies this as “some pattern that God set up for several men throughout the ages”.

All the verses you provided point to Christ, not anyone other than Melchizedek.  But I understand 
that it's taught in the Doctrine and Covenants.

As you know, no Christian is specifically identified as being a Melchizedek priest or a high priest 
in the New Testament.

Two people are identified in the New Testament as holding the office of high priest. They are 
Caiaphas and Annas, but they did not hold the Melchizedek priesthood.

Two people called Alma are identified as high priests in the Book of Mormon before the supposed 
appearance of Jesus to the Nephites. This is found in Mosiah 23:16 and Alma 4:4. They did not 
hold the Melchizedek priesthood as Doctrine and Covenants says it was removed with Moses and 
replaced with the lesser priesthood.

No person in the Book of Ether (a record of the Jaredites) is mentioned as holding the office of 
high priest.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

The Jewish sources I provided previously (in my post on October 26 and elsewhere) show that prior to the law of Moses the firstborn had the duty to perform sacrificial services in the priesthood. Others in the family held the priesthood, but the firstborn had the duty to perform the sacrificial services.

What did all non-firstborn males from Adam all the way down to Moses, which you believe held the 
priesthood, do with their priesthood?

In Noah's case, do you believe the Melchizedek priesthood passed "from father to son" like D&C 
107:40-41 says or "from father to sons"?  Did all his 3 sons hold the priesthood?
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

But, that page of the manual doesn’t say anything about the birthright and the priesthood as you associate it in your statement above.  The priesthood isn’t mentioned until the bottom of the page, where it talks about Abraham having received the priesthood.

Page 172 said, "For example, the posterity of Jacob's (Israel's) son Joseph were promised a special 
land beyond Canaan where they would "push the people together to the ends of the earth" (Deuteronomy 
33:17; see verses 13–17; see also Genesis 49:22–26)".

This would tie together with what I mentioned earlier from Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the 
Gospel – Teacher Manual, chapter 21, page 76.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32499_eng.pdf

It's in the section discussing "push" / "gore" and "unicorn" / "wild ox".

"This verse is being fulfilled in this, the last dispensation, as Joseph steps forward to claim 
his birthright as the firstborn son, which includes the responsibility of the priesthood. It is 
by the power of the priesthood that Israel will be gathered and that the saving ordinances will 
be administered under the direction of the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh)".

There is no record of Joseph ever building an altar or offering sacrifices.

If you can provide any "official" LDS doctrine about these aspects of Joseph, then please let me 
know.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

You still didn’t answer the question.  I didn’t ask you who you don’t accept, I asked you who is a Christian leader today who speaks for all of Christianity?

It sounds like nobody.

No one specific mortal on earth, but only Jesus in heaven and the Word he has given to us, and 
the Spirit he has sent to be our Comforter.

If I am not mistaken, the current President of the LDS Church speaks for it, but not for all of 
Christianity.  This is supposedly true for all LDS Presidents of the past.  I believe they have 
not always taught the truth to their members. My primary example is Joseph Smith, Jr.  

They teach things and then people scramble to label these teachings as opinions or speculations 
when it seems farfetched.  "Oh no, it's not official doctrine though" is the usual mantra.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

So how do you know who is following a false God, or who is leading people astray?  Are you the arbitrator of doctrinal truth and the proper interpretation of the Bible?  Or who is?  You have no right to proclaim judgement against anyone else.

The Bible.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for 
correction, for instruction in righteousness".

God has provided us the means to detect a false god or false Christ.

Do you view the Jesus of Jehovah's Witnesses (aka Michael the Archangel) as the true Christ?

The person that delivered the sermon may not have the credentials of a church or stake president 
or a General Authority, but is the message true or false?  Don't judge the book by its cover, but 
rather discern the content.

When Joseph Smith taught God is not God from all eternity, it is either true or false. 

When Gospel Principles taught "The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: When you climb up a ladder, you 
must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with 
the principles of the Gospel ... This is the way our Heavenly Father became God", it is either 
true or false.

The difference is between a false god and the true God.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

I’m not critical of Paul.  I sympathize with Paul in his time and situation, and I’m pointing out the reality that prophets and apostles (in the Bible and now) are human and they try to understand things based on their limited information at the time.  That’s exactly what Paul was doing when he thought the second coming of Christ would come during his lifetime.  

And Paul totally understood this principle too, because he taught, “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”  (1 Corinthians 13:12).

In context, the chapter is about love being greater than spiritual gifts. Paul's point is that 
prophecy, knowledge, and tongues are temporary and limited, but love lasts. So the verse isn't 
saying knowledge is bad—it's saying humility is needed, because full understanding comes later.

Earlier in the chapter (13:8–10), Paul says prophecy will pass away, tongues will cease, knowledge 
will pass away because they are partial, and something complete is coming. Verse 12 is Paul 
restating that same idea with a metaphor (blurred mirror vs. face-to-face).

The way the New Testament apostles talk about the Second Coming often sounds more like hope or 
expectation than a clear statement that it would definitely happen in their lifetime. Take Paul, 
for example. His letters have a strong sense of urgency, and he tells believers to stay ready, 
but he never claims to know exactly when Jesus will return.

In 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17, Paul uses phrases like "we who are alive and remain," which sounds 
more like he's including himself as a possibility, not making a firm prediction. Peter makes a 
similar point in 2 Peter 3:8–9, reminding people that God's sense of timing doesn't work the same 
way ours does, and encouraging patience instead of speculation.

So overall, while early Christians clearly hoped the return might be soon, the consistent message 
in the New Testament is less about dates and more about staying faithful and prepared whenever it 
happens.

This being unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, who have set various dates for the return of Christ: 1914, 
1925, and 1975.

When I hear or read about teachings in General Conference and published books in past and present, 
it seems LDS leaders actually believe that what they are teaching is really true.  The principle 
of 1 Corinthians 13:12 becomes "Before 1830 we saw through a glass, darkly; but afterwards we 
would know the truth as in face to face: Before 1830, we knew only in part, but after that we would 
know what God has or will make known to us".
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

So, are you admitting that your statement is not LDS doctrine and just your so-called “extrapolation” which in this case is just speculation and opinion?  Otherwise, the CFR still stands: CFR for where official LDS doctrine teaches that God was “a spirit child of heavenly parents”.   You are speculating and giving your opinion, not official LDS doctrine.  (And note the key word, “official”).

I cannot provide LDS doctrines where it says Heavenly Mother "officially" exists (using that key 
word) or that she "officially" became a God (using that key word).

As for the phrase "God was a spirit child of heavenly parents", maybe I should have added more 
context to it.

I see that the LDS God (you can pick either Jesus or Heavenly Father) in a sense was not a God 
when he became a spirit child of his heavenly parents.  He would become a God at some later point 
of his existence. A doctrine taught in "Religion 430-431 – Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual", 
even though the word "official" is not used of anything taught in that seminary manual, teaches 
Jesus was ranked as a God when he reached some pinnacle of intelligence.

Maybe the manual will be renamed to "Religion 430-431 – Opinions and Speculations of the Gospel 
Student Manual" someday.  Maybe the same for "Doctrines of Salvation" by Joseph Fielding Smith. 
I'm not sure how one would rename "Gospel Principles" or "Gospel Truth" by George Q. Cannon though.

Let's apply the analogy to you. InCognitus is supposedly a spirit child of a heavenly father or 
mother but InCognitus is not a spirit child of heavenly parents who is also presently a God.  If 
you reach what LDS believes is exaltation, then the statement "God (Incognitus) is a spirit child 
of heavenly parents" is more accurate.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Given what Joseph Smith taught about God the Father as the “head God” and what the revealed word of God teaches, which is that God is the “God of all other gods”, there doesn’t seem to be room for such speculation about God the Father being “a spirit child of heavenly parents”.

Was the LDS Heavenly Mother a spirit child of her heavenly parents? If no, where does she come 
from?

Doctrine and Covenants 121:32 says, "According to that which was ordained in the midst of the 
Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto 
the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into 
his immortal rest".

Several other teachings say Gods.  
 
One of them uses Doctrine and Covenants 121:32 in its footnote for Gods.  Does this mean "gods" = 
"Gods" ?

"... the heads of the Gods appointed one God for us" (Joseph Smith Papers).

"Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council".

"The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The 
grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds 
which were created at the time" (King Follett discourse).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

"Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council [14]".
"The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council [17]".

[14] D&C 121:32
[17] Abr. 4:1
(Teachings of Joseph Smith, 1938).
https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf

"Gods" are said to have created the heavens, the earth, and man (Abraham 4:1, 26-27), but 
Religion 430-431 – Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual says, "We know that Jehovah-Christ, 
assisted by many of the noble and great ones did in fact create the earth and all forms of plant 
and animal life. But when it came to placing man on earth, there was a change in Creators. That 
is, the Father himself became personally involved".

Another seminary manual says Joseph Smith and others were also thought to have helped God create 
the earth (Religion 327 – Pearl of Great Price Student Manual, pp. 7-8, 38). 

I don't see this ("that many others assisted Jesus to create the earth and all forms of plant and 
animal life") specifically labelled as "official" doctrine, an opinion, or a speculation.

Is this a true or false teaching?
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

So, there is nothing there to support your claim that God the Father has a God “above” him or that he was the “spirit child of heavenly parents” as you are claiming.  The Bullock notes of that sermon indicate that Jesus Christ has a God “above” him (God the Father), but that’s talking about Jesus, not God the Father (and that’s biblical).  And the Church does not have an official interpretation of the things recorded in the Thomas Bullock notes of the Sermon in the Grove.  Consequently, your opinions and speculations don’t fulfill the CFR.

It's not the only source.

The Prophet says: "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father 
of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also." Then he asks: "Where 
was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a 
son?" (page 9).

The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, 
especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him?

Evidently his Father passed through a period of mortality even as he passed through mortality, 
and as we all are doing. Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since 
there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father, until we 
come to a stop where we cannot go further, because of our limited capacity to understand"  
(page 249).

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

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

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

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

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

"Long before our God began his creations, he dwelt on a mortal world like ours, one of the creations 
that his Father had created for him and his brethren. He, with many of his brethren, was obedient 
to the principles of the eternal gospel. One among these, it is presumed, was a savior for them, 
and through him they obtained a resurrection and an exaltation on an eternal, celestial world.[8]  
Then they gained the power and godhood of their Father and were made heirs of all that he had, 
continuing his works and creating worlds of their own for their own posterity—the same as their 
Father had done before, and his Father, and his Father, and on and on". 

[8] Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, p. 71.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1971/04/people-on-other-worlds?lang=eng

These are not taught as opinion or speculation.

The same principle is found in the King Follett Discourse.

"We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and 
take away the veil, so that you may see".

"Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how 
to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God,10 the same as all Gods have done before 
you" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, 1938).

This is not taught as opinion or speculation.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

You may consider speculation and opinions to be doctrines (remember, you said, “Put simply, doctrines are just faith-based beliefs that are spoken or printed without the caveat of them just being opinions or speculations”), but I do not, and neither does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Most, if not, everything taught in "Gospel Principles" or other church publications and General 
Conferences are not referenced as being "official" doctrine (using that key word).

Which teachings in "Gospel Principles" do you consider speculations or opinions of the LDS Church?
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

But you didn’t answer the question.  The term “homoousious” was added to the creed by the Roman Emperor Constantine, and it is an unbiblical concept and an unbiblical term.  Do you believe that unbiblical doctrine (as added by a Roman emperor and later enforced by the government by other Roman emperors) is leading people astray?

It seems I have not or am not able to express how I view the term "homoousious" so I will create 
a new post, detailing how ChatGPT would answer the question, so others on the forum can comment 
if they wish.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

You are quick to say what you think Paul was not doing, but if Joseph Smith (instead of Paul) had said “we are the offspring of God”, would you come to the same conclusion as you do above?

You keep reading your modern views back into the Bible, and we should instead consider what the scripture says on its own terms and in its own textual and historical context.

The doctrine of a heavenly mother is not explicitly taught in any book of LDS canon.

Gospel Principles, a hymn "O My Father", and other publications teach about her existence. Apparently 
they do contain doctrine, albeit not labelled as "official" doctrine, using that key word.

From what I know, there is no historical context for church fathers teaching about a heavenly mother.
 

On 12/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Matthew 3:9 is referring to a physical creation of the body (God is able to raise up children from stones, the physical), not their eternal spirits that come from the presence of God (the same kind of being as God).  Man’s physical body was created from the “dust of the earth” (like the stones of Matthew 3:9), but his spirit came from God (Genesis 2:7).  And remember, God is the “Father of spirits”.  

And why are you so determined to eliminate women from the creation process? 

I have no basis to believe in an LDS Heavenly Mother who was involved to create Eve or other spirit 
daughters in her image. 

Even an earthly mother is not solely capable of determining that she will form a female child in 
her womb in her image.

Maybe the Latter-day Saints believe their Heavenly Mother has this capability, and somehow allows 
her husband some method to tweak the offspring in her womb so that the child is formed in his 
image instead.

Maybe it's all determined with the X and Y chromosomes.

The basic mechanism: the mother's egg always carries an X chromosome. The father's sperm carries 
either an X or a Y chromosome.

At conception:

X (egg) + X (sperm) results in XX -> female
X (egg) + Y (sperm) results in XY -> male

Maybe this is irrelevant for exalted beings as sperm may no longer be required.

Edited January 15 by theplains
accidentally saved before adding all my reply

[theplains]

On 1/1/2026 at 11:13 AM, InCognitus said:

The Title Page of the Book of Mormon states that one of the purposes of the Book of Mormon is "to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations"

2 Nephi 26:12; "And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God".

Mosiah 27:31, "Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his all-searching eye."

Doctrine and Covenants 35:1-2; "Listen to the voice of the Lord your God...I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world..."

Doctrine and Covenants 38:1-3, "Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I AM, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end..."

Doctrine and Covenants 18:33, "And I, Jesus Christ, your Lord and your God, have spoken it." 

3 Nephi 11:14, "Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world."

Is that what you had in mind with respect to salvation?

The quotes you provided are the LDS teachings to confirm Jesus is presently a God.  I was referring 
to all the other LDS teachings which indicate that Jesus became a God.  

He [the LDS version of Christ] eternally existed as an uncreated intelligence, became the first 
spirit child of heavenly parents, and then progressed into becoming a God before his incarnation.  
The seminary manual says he was ranked as a God when he attained some pinnacle of intelligence.

It's the same path as worthy Latter-day Saints hope to follow someday, becoming a God.  But before 
that point in their lives arrives, they are considered to have eternally existed as uncreated 
intelligences, are taught to have become spirit children of heavenly parents, who then came to 
earth in a physical body.

Caveat: some of these teachings are not explicitly classified as "official" doctrine but they are 
not classified as "speculation" or "opinion" either.

[ZealouslyStriving]

13 hours ago, theplains said:

Evidently

      👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[ZealouslyStriving]

On 1/15/2026 at 11:44 AM, theplains said:

Caveat: some of these teachings are not explicitly classified as "official" doctrine but they are 
not classified as "speculation" or "opinion" either.

What the... huh?? 🤨

[InCognitus]

On 1/15/2026 at 12:44 PM, theplains said:

On 1/1/2026 at 9:13 AM, InCognitus said:

The Title Page of the Book of Mormon states that one of the purposes of the Book of Mormon is "to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations"

2 Nephi 26:12; "And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God".

Mosiah 27:31, "Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his all-searching eye."

Doctrine and Covenants 35:1-2; "Listen to the voice of the Lord your God...I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world..."

Doctrine and Covenants 38:1-3, "Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I AM, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end..."

Doctrine and Covenants 18:33, "And I, Jesus Christ, your Lord and your God, have spoken it." 

3 Nephi 11:14, "Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world."

Is that what you had in mind with respect to salvation?

The quotes you provided are the LDS teachings to confirm Jesus is presently a God.  I was referring 
to all the other LDS teachings which indicate that Jesus became a God.  

But remember, you were responding to what CV75 asked, which was this: “What is the most salient point of all those you reviewed in your post, upon which hinges humanity's salvation?”

The key question is, what does salvation hinge upon?

Your response was “Who Jesus is”.  My response was, Jesus is God, and I quoted many Latter-day scriptural passages that state that fact far clearer than the Bible does.  Do you think what Jesus once was changes how salvation is obtained now?

Do you believe that from a salvation standpoint that the “other LDS teachings which indicate that Jesus became a God” counteract the clear and absolute LDS teachings (that I quoted) that Jesus is God?  What is it exactly that disqualifies salvation other than your personal opinion on the matter?

Furthermore, where does the Bible say that the “other LDS teachings which indicate that Jesus became a God” are false teachings or that they would disqualify one's salvation by believing them?  Where does the Bible teach that Jesus has always been God?  (Hint, it doesn't, you've been asked this very question before).

And I know you are familiar with the early Christian teachings on this point, but I’ll repeat them here for complete context:

This is what Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220 AD) taught about Jesus:

“CHAP. II.--THE SON THE RULER AND SAVIOUR OF ALL. To know God is, then, the first step of faith; then, through confidence in the teaching of the Saviour, to consider the doing of wrong in any way as not suitable to the knowledge of God.  So the best thing on earth is the most pious man; and the best thing in heaven, the nearer in place and purer, is an angel, the partaker of the eternal and blessed life. But the nature of the Son, which is nearest to Him who is alone the Almighty One, is the most perfect, and most holy, and most potent, and most princely, and most kingly, and most beneficent. This is the highest excellence, which orders all things in accordance with the Father’s will, and holds the helm of the universe in the best way, with unwearied and tireless power, working all things in which it operates, keeping in view its hidden designs. For from His own point of view the Son of God is never displaced; not being divided, not severed, not passing from place to place; being always everywhere, and being contained nowhere; complete mind, the complete paternal light; all eyes, seeing all things, hearing all things, knowing all things, by His power scrutinizing the powers. To Him is placed in subjection all the host of angels and gods; He, the paternal Word, exhibiting the holy administration for Him who put [all] in subjection to Him.”   (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 2)

This is what Origen (185-254 AD) taught about Jesus Christ, the Son of God:

“And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.” (See Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, paragraph 2).

Is the salvation of those early Christians also disqualified because of your opinion?

Show us why this matters to salvation from a Biblical point of view instead of by your opinions and speculation.

[theplains]

On 1/17/2026 at 4:40 PM, InCognitus said:

This is what Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220 AD) taught about Jesus:

“CHAP. II.--THE SON THE RULER AND SAVIOUR OF ALL. To know God is, then, the first step of faith; then, through confidence in the teaching of the Saviour, to consider the doing of wrong in any way as not suitable to the knowledge of God.  So the best thing on earth is the most pious man; and the best thing in heaven, the nearer in place and purer, is an angel, the partaker of the eternal and blessed life. But the nature of the Son, which is nearest to Him who is alone the Almighty One, is the most perfect, and most holy, and most potent, and most princely, and most kingly, and most beneficent. This is the highest excellence, which orders all things in accordance with the Father’s will, and holds the helm of the universe in the best way, with unwearied and tireless power, working all things in which it operates, keeping in view its hidden designs. For from His own point of view the Son of God is never displaced; not being divided, not severed, not passing from place to place; being always everywhere, and being contained nowhere; complete mind, the complete paternal light; all eyes, seeing all things, hearing all things, knowing all things, by His power scrutinizing the powers. To Him is placed in subjection all the host of angels and gods; He, the paternal Word, exhibiting the holy administration for Him who put [all] in subjection to Him.”   (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 2)

This is what Origen (185-254 AD) taught about Jesus Christ, the Son of God:

“And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.” (See Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, paragraph 2).

Do you believe they are teaching Jesus became a God?

[InCognitus]

On 1/21/2026 at 12:28 PM, theplains said:

Do you believe they are teaching Jesus became a God?

Do you believe you could answer my questions first?

The key question is, what does salvation hinge upon?

Your response was “Who Jesus is”.  My response was, Jesus is God, and I quoted many Latter-day scriptural passages that state that fact far clearer than the Bible does.  

Now here are the questions:

Do you think what Jesus once was changes how salvation is obtained now?

Do you believe that from a salvation standpoint that the “other LDS teachings which indicate that Jesus became a God” counteract the clear and absolute LDS teachings (that I quoted) that Jesus is God?  

What is it exactly that disqualifies salvation other than your personal opinion on the matter?

Furthermore, where does the Bible say that the “other LDS teachings which indicate that Jesus became a God” are false teachings or that they would disqualify one's salvation by believing them? 

Where does the Bible teach that Jesus has always been God?  (Hint, it doesn't, you've been asked this very question before).

Answer my questions and then I'll answer yours.  Show us why this matters to salvation from a Biblical point of view instead of by your opinions and speculation.

These questions about salvation are the most important questions of all , and I'm going to wait for your answers before I address some others.

Edited January 23 by InCognitus

[theplains]

On 1/22/2026 at 10:22 PM, InCognitus said:

Now here are the questions:

Do you think what Jesus once was changes how salvation is obtained now?

Change makes a difference. Differing key details of a person means people can be mistaken for 
someone else.

Example 1:  

John: Did you hear what happened to Josh?

Helen: Yes.  It's too bad that he lost the game.

John: What do you mean?

Helen: He threw an interception and the game ended.

John: What are you talking about? Josh doesn't play football for the Buffalo Bills.

Helen: Sorry, I thought you were talking about Josh Allen.

Example 2:

Christian: I believe in Jesus in my salvation.

Muslim: Me too. He was a great prophet. We follow his teachings for salvation.

Christian: From the Bible?

Muslim: From the Quran.

Christian: He was God incarnate.

Muslim: That's not the Jesus we believe in. He was sent by God but he was not God.

Christian: You believe in a different Jesus for your salvation.
 

On 1/22/2026 at 10:22 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe that from a salvation standpoint that the “other LDS teachings which indicate that Jesus became a God” counteract the clear and absolute LDS teachings (that I quoted) that Jesus is God?

The LDS teachings which indicate Jesus became a God do not nullify the other LDS teachings that Jesus 
is currently a God.
 

On 1/22/2026 at 10:22 PM, InCognitus said:

  What is it exactly that disqualifies salvation other than your personal opinion on the matter?

It's a different Jesus.

Jehovah's Witnesses teach Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Would believing in a false Jesus
disqualify their salvation even though they believed he atoned for their sins?
 

On 1/22/2026 at 10:22 PM, InCognitus said:

Furthermore, where does the Bible say that the “other LDS teachings which indicate that Jesus became a God” are false teachings or that they would disqualify one's salvation by believing them? 

There are many held beliefs today that the Bible does not specifically label false teachings.
 

On 1/22/2026 at 10:22 PM, InCognitus said:

Where does the Bible teach that Jesus has always been God?  (Hint, it doesn't, you've been asked this very question before).

The Bible affirms Jesus Christ's eternal divinity—His existence as God from all eternity, without 
beginning or change—in multiple passages that describe Him as the pre-existent Word, the Creator, 
the exact representation of God, and directly addressed as God. Key texts include John 1:1-3, 
Hebrews 1:8, and Colossians 1:15-20. God is from everlasting (Psalm 41:13, Psalm 90:2, Psalm 103:17,
Isaiah 40:28). There is only one God (Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:6). 

LDS canon contains no teaching which indicates Jesus or Heavenly Father became a God.  But it is
widespread in LDS Church teachings.

[InCognitus]

On 1/29/2026 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 1/22/2026 at 8:22 PM, InCognitus said:

Now here are the questions:

Do you think what Jesus once was changes how salvation is obtained now?

Change makes a difference. Differing key details of a person means people can be mistaken for 
someone else.

Or, it could be different details about the same person.  Who gets to decide?

Latter-day Saints believe in the Jesus of the Bible, and we believe everything the Bible says about him and more. 

On 1/29/2026 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

Example 2:

Christian: I believe in Jesus in my salvation.

Muslim: Me too. He was a great prophet. We follow his teachings for salvation.

Christian: From the Bible?

Muslim: From the Quran.

Christian: He was God incarnate.

Muslim: That's not the Jesus we believe in. He was sent by God but he was not God.

Christian: You believe in a different Jesus for your salvation.

Example 3:

Peter:  I was with Jesus during his ministry.  I saw him do many miracles.  Did you experience that?

Paul:  I never knew Jesus during his lifetime, so I never saw him do such miracles.  But I did see him on the road to Damascus.  Did you see that?

Peter:  No. You believe in a different Jesus than I do.

Paul:  You believe in a different Jesus than I do.

Modern Christian:  Do either of you believe that Jesus is “homoousious” with his Father?

Peter and Paul (in unison):  HUH?  WHAT?  What is that?

Modern Christian:  You don’t know about that?  It is how Jesus and his Father are “one God”.  If you don’t believe that then you believe in a different Jesus than I do.

Peter and Paul (in unison):  NO! You believe in a different Jesus, period!

On 1/29/2026 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 1/22/2026 at 8:22 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe that from a salvation standpoint that the “other LDS teachings which indicate that Jesus became a God” counteract the clear and absolute LDS teachings (that I quoted) that Jesus is God?

The LDS teachings which indicate Jesus became a God do not nullify the other LDS teachings that Jesus 
is currently a God.

It’s nice to hear you say that.  Jesus is clearly divine in Latter-day Saint teachings and we rely on him for our salvation.

On 1/29/2026 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 1/22/2026 at 8:22 PM, InCognitus said:

  What is it exactly that disqualifies salvation other than your personal opinion on the matter?

It's a different Jesus.

According to who?  This is the entire question, and your answer doesn't really address the question.  Who or what gives you the authority to judge a person’s salvation?  Who or what gives you the authority to judge who is teaching a different Jesus?  (And if you say “The Bible”, then see Example 3 above and the discussion below).

On 1/29/2026 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 1/22/2026 at 8:22 PM, InCognitus said:

Furthermore, where does the Bible say that the “other LDS teachings which indicate that Jesus became a God” are false teachings or that they would disqualify one's salvation by believing them? 

There are many held beliefs today that the Bible does not specifically label false teachings.

But this doesn’t seem to stop you from making yourself the judge of the salvation of Latter-day Saints.  Why is that?

Yes, there are many beliefs held by some people today that the Bible does not specifically label as false teachings, including many beliefs that are held by modern Christians, as I pointed out earlier.

This is a good time for me to quote from a post I made to you on June 23, 2023, because I think it explains what I’m trying to say here the best, and to the point of how you view your purpose here on the board as a judge opposing the salvation of Latter-day Saints.

Quoting as follows:

You say that a “true believer” is a “sincere believer in Christ”, but then you make it all about doctrine in everything else that you say.  Everyone believes in different things about Jesus depending on the information they’ve been given about him.  Some of the things that people teach about Jesus may even be unbiblical, even in traditional creed-based Christianity.

While I think that sound doctrine is important, I don’t think there’s anything in scripture that says having faulty doctrine disqualifies a person from being a true believer in Christ.  We previously discussed Apollos and how he was a true believer in Christ even though he had an imperfect understanding of the doctrine (Acts 18:24-26).  God judges us based on how we respond to what truths we’ve been given and how we treat our neighbors.  Our real belief in Christ is known by our love for one another.

A true Christian not only professes belief in the Savior, but a Christian lives and acts according to the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ.  Knowing true doctrine helps us to come to know God better.  But true doctrine can only be known by revelation from God and having a correct understanding of the scriptures which can only come by revelation from God.  People can come up with their own interpretation of scriptures based on philosophy and man’s wisdom and reasoning, but the end result may not be anything like what God intended.  God’s wisdom comes through the Spirit of God.

The one thing I like about the “Got Questions” website that you like, is that it is fairly honest and open about when some teachings aren’t biblical.  For example, in this article on “Does Christ have two natures?”, it says right up front:  “The Bible does not explicitly address the question of whether Jesus Christ has two natures or only one.”   So why do people believe it?  And if you believe that Christ has two natures, are you believing in a "different Jesus"?

And in the article on What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?  it says:

“The doctrine of the Trinity has been a divisive issue throughout the entire history of the Christian church. While the core aspects of the Trinity are clearly presented in God’s Word, some of the side issues are not as explicitly clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God. That is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Beyond that, the issues are, to a certain extent, debatable and non-essential.”

And elsewhere, in the article on "How can Jesus be God if Deuteronomy 6:4 says that God is one?", the website defines how Jesus and his Father are "one God", and says:  

Quote

 

First, it is crucial to understand what Deuteronomy 6:4 means when it says, “LORD is one.” The Hebrew word translated “one” in Deuteronomy 6:4 is echad. It means “unity,” not “singularity.” It is also used in Genesis 2:24 in referring to a husband and wife being “one” flesh. A husband and wife are not one as in a singular being. Rather, they are in unity with each other. There is a Hebrew word that means “absolute singularity,” yachid, but it is never used in the Hebrew Scriptures in reference to God.

With that said, it is important to affirm the biblical teaching of one God. From the very first words of Scripture, we are told there is only one God who created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). The controversy is not whether there is only one God versus two gods. The discussion is how Christians understand Jesus as this one true God. Christians believe that the Bible presents one God who exists in three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity does not contradict Deuteronomy 6:4. As was said above, the Hebrew word echad means “unity,” not “singularity.” Christians believe the Persons of the Trinity are united in the Godhead.

 

So the website clearly teaches that the Father and Son are not one in singularity, but rather they are two separate entities that are one in unity, in the same way as a husband and wife are to be in unity.  This is exactly what Latter-day Saints teach about the Godhead as well.  And apparently (according to the website), the other issues are "debatable and non-essential".

Since there are so many things in traditional Christian doctrine that don't really come from scripture at all, I don't see why these are points of contention between us.

On 1/29/2026 at 8:42 AM, theplains said:

On 1/22/2026 at 8:22 PM, InCognitus said:

Where does the Bible teach that Jesus has always been God?  (Hint, it doesn't, you've been asked this very question before).

The Bible affirms Jesus Christ's eternal divinity—His existence as God from all eternity, without 
beginning or change—in multiple passages that describe Him as the pre-existent Word, the Creator, 
the exact representation of God, and directly addressed as God. Key texts include John 1:1-3, 
Hebrews 1:8, and Colossians 1:15-20. God is from everlasting (Psalm 41:13, Psalm 90:2, Psalm 103:17,
Isaiah 40:28). There is only one God (Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:6). 

No surprise, but none of the passages you reference above say anything about “Christ’s” eternal divinity.

John 1:1-3 simply says that Jesus was divine in the beginning with God the Father.  It says nothing about how long he was divine.

Hebrews 1:8 simply has God the Father referring to the Son as “God” and stating that his throne is (present tense) “for ever and ever”.  That says nothing about his existence as God “from all eternity” past, only that he has the throne going forward forever.  (See similar verses in Daniel 7:13-14, Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:20-23, Philippians 2:9-13).

Colossians 1:15-20 states that Jesus is “before all things, and by him all things consist”, which is essentially the same thing as said in John 1:1-3.  Jesus created the things “that were made”.  But it doesn’t say anything about Jesus existing as God “from all eternity”.

Then you refer to several Old Testament passages which do not specifically say they are about Jesus Christ at all, and in fact none of them say anything about God existing as God from all eternity.  And we have discussed the real meaning of verses like Psalm 41:13, Psalm 90:2, and Psalm 103:17 previously.

• YLT:  Psalm 41:13, “Blessed is Jehovah, God of Israel, From the age -- and unto the age. Amen and Amen.”
• YLT:  Psalm 90:2, “Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou art God.”
• YLT: Psalm 103:17, “And the kindness of Jehovah Is from age even unto age on those fearing Him, And His righteousness to sons' sons,”
• YLT:  Isaiah 40:28, “Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard? The God of the age -- Jehovah, Preparer of the ends of the earth, Is not wearied nor fatigued, There is no searching of His understanding.”

As for trying to claim that Jesus is being referred to in Isaiah 43:10 and Isaiah 44:6, why don’t you look at what the New Testament says about that?

Jesus said that “the only true God” is God the Father: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”  (John 17:3)

And Paul taught that God the Father is the “one God”, and Jesus is his mediator: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).

So you really don’t have any biblical support for your claims. 

So I ask again, who or what gives you the authority to judge a person’s salvation?  Who or what gives you the authority to judge who is teaching a different Jesus?  It seems to be your opinion and nothing more.

[theplains]

On 2/1/2026 at 10:11 PM, InCognitus said:

According to who?  This is the entire question, and your answer doesn't really address the question.  Who or what gives you the authority to judge a person’s salvation?  Who or what gives you the authority to judge who is teaching a different Jesus?

Jehovah's Witnesses teach Jesus is Michael the Archangel.  Would you consider that a different 
Jesus?

I don't consider their salvation by faith in that Jesus as valid. God is the ultimate authority 
but I state it as my opinion.
 

On 2/1/2026 at 10:11 PM, InCognitus said:

No surprise, but none of the passages you reference above say anything about “Christ’s” eternal divinity.

What does the term "Eternal God" in reference to Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon's Title page 
mean to you?
 

On 2/1/2026 at 10:11 PM, InCognitus said:

John 1:1-3 simply says that Jesus was divine in the beginning with God the Father.  It says nothing about how long he was divine.

Are you affirming your belief that Jesus has not always been God?

I provided LDS sources which teach that the LDS Heavenly Father became a God and that he had a 
Father before him.

Would you provide any scriptures or LDS teachings that you regard as being true which shows he 
did not become a God and did not have a Father before him?
 

On 2/1/2026 at 10:11 PM, InCognitus said:

As for trying to claim that Jesus is being referred to in Isaiah 43:10 and Isaiah 44:6, why don’t you look at what the New Testament says about that?

Jesus said that “the only true God” is God the Father: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”  (John 17:3)

And Paul taught that God the Father is the “one God”, and Jesus is his mediator: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).

So you really don’t have any biblical support for your claims. 

Jesus is God incarnate. 

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, theplains said:

On 2/1/2026 at 8:11 PM, InCognitus said:

According to who?  This is the entire question, and your answer doesn't really address the question.  Who or what gives you the authority to judge a person’s salvation?  Who or what gives you the authority to judge who is teaching a different Jesus?

Jehovah's Witnesses teach Jesus is Michael the Archangel.  Would you consider that a different 
Jesus?

And of course, you are trying to evade the question again by misdirection.   In a prior post I asked this question:

On 2/1/2026 at 8:11 PM, InCognitus said:

On 1/22/2026 at 8:22 PM, InCognitus said:

  What is it exactly that disqualifies salvation other than your personal opinion on the matter?

It's a different Jesus.

Your answer was, "It's a different Jesus".

THESE are the questions:   [It's a different Jesus] According to who? This is the entire question, and your answer doesn't really address the question [AGAIN!]. Who or what gives you the authority to judge a person’s salvation? Who or what gives you the authority to judge who is teaching a different Jesus?

7 hours ago, theplains said:

On 2/1/2026 at 8:11 PM, InCognitus said:

No surprise, but none of the passages you reference above say anything about “Christ’s” eternal divinity.

What does the term "Eternal God" in reference to Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon's Title page 
mean to you?

We can talk about side issues as soon as you define your authority to condemn others and deny them their salvation through Jesus Christ.  Answer the questions asked above.

7 hours ago, theplains said:

On 2/1/2026 at 8:11 PM, InCognitus said:

John 1:1-3 simply says that Jesus was divine in the beginning with God the Father.  It says nothing about how long he was divine.

Are you affirming your belief that Jesus has not always been God?

I'm affirming that John 1:1-3 simply says that Jesus was divine in the beginning with God the Father, but it says nothing about how long he was divine.  You tried to use John 1:1-3 to claim that Jesus has always been divine, but it says nothing of the sort.  I'm just pointing out that you haven't proven your case.

7 hours ago, theplains said:

I provided LDS sources which teach that the LDS Heavenly Father became a God

Nobody has disputed that point other than what it means that he "became God".  Joseph Smith taught that God has always been the "head God" and that he "became God" in relation to us when God proposed his plan of salvation to the eternal spirits that he was with.

7 hours ago, theplains said:

and that he had a 
Father before him.

Nothing you provided from official church sources shows that he had a Father before him.

7 hours ago, theplains said:

Would you provide any scriptures or LDS teachings that you regard as being true which shows he 
did not become a God and did not have a Father before him?

You already know the answer to that question because I've addressed that topic many many times with you.  It's in my DETAILED explanation on that subject that you ignored in my post on 05/26/2025, and in several other posts. 

Do you wonder why I haven't posted my already prepared response to your other posts?  This is why.  You don't show any intent to engage our actual beliefs and ask the same questions, over and over again.  You try to evade our questions and avoid talking about the implications of your own questions to your own beliefs.  And it appears your goal is only to paint our beliefs according to your own imagination as you did while pretending to be a member of the church on this board while posting under the user name TheTanakas.  Be honest with us, engage with our actual beliefs, and then maybe we can talk.

This is why I'm asking the questions I asked above in this post.  No more nonsense.

8 hours ago, theplains said:

On 2/1/2026 at 8:11 PM, InCognitus said:

As for trying to claim that Jesus is being referred to in Isaiah 43:10 and Isaiah 44:6, why don’t you look at what the New Testament says about that?

Jesus said that “the only true God” is God the Father: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”  (John 17:3)

And Paul taught that God the Father is the “one God”, and Jesus is his mediator: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).

So you really don’t have any biblical support for your claims. 

Jesus is God incarnate. 

Ok, the Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus is God incarnate (more clearly than the Bible I might add).  But where does that get us in this discussion? 

So I ask again (and I'm going to keep asking until I get an answer), who or what gives you the authority to judge a person’s salvation?  Who or what gives you the authority to judge who is teaching a different Jesus?  It seems to be your opinion and nothing more.