8/11/26

Recently, Viany and I met with the two LDS sisters we’ve been talking with, and we continued our ongoing conversation about Scripture, the nature of God, and the LDS understanding of the Restoration. We had previously given them several passages to look at, and this meeting was largely an opportunity for them to explain how they understood those Scriptures and for Viany and me to ask questions and work through some of the areas where our interpretations differ. The conversation ended up going much deeper than simply comparing individual verses. We found ourselves talking about the kingdom of God, the image of God, the nature of God, prophetic authority, and ultimately how each of us determines what is true.

We started with Daniel 2, particularly the description of the kingdom that God establishes and that will never be destroyed. The sisters explained that they understand this as referring to the kingdom of God being established on earth through the Restoration of the gospel, particularly through Joseph Smith and the restored Church. They connected the stone cut without hands to the gospel coming forth and eventually overcoming the other kingdoms and continuing forever. Viany and I wanted to understand how that interpretation fits with the language of Daniel 2 itself, especially the fact that this kingdom destroys the other kingdoms and “shall stand forever.” We asked how that could refer primarily to an earthly church if LDS theology also distinguishes between the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms. We tried to work through whether the kingdom described in Daniel 2 is one of those kingdoms, something distinct from them, or an earthly kingdom that eventually becomes something else when Christ returns. The sisters were honest that they didn't have a completely settled answer to that question, and they agreed to look into it further.

From there, the conversation moved into the image of God and the nature of God. We discussed passages such as John 1:14, John 4:24, and Genesis 1:26, along with passages from the Doctrine and Covenants. One of the biggest differences between our perspectives became apparent here. The sisters explained that they believe God the Father has a tangible body of flesh and bones, while the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. They pointed particularly to Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 as a clear statement of that belief. Viany and I explained that we understand the biblical passages differently. In particular, we tend to understand humanity being made in the “image of God” primarily in terms of representing God—reflecting his character, authority, and purposes—rather than necessarily meaning that our physical bodies resemble God's physical body. We also discussed Jesus' statement in John 4 that “God is spirit,” which we understand differently from the LDS interpretation. What became clear was that the disagreement isn't really just about one verse. It goes deeper into the different sources of revelation and authority that each side accepts.

That led us into a broader discussion about Joseph Smith, prophetic authority, and how we determine what is true. Viany and I asked the sisters a hypothetical question: if the current LDS prophet were someday to make a formal statement that contradicted something Joseph Smith had taught—for example, saying that God does not have a physical body—how would they determine which teaching to believe? They explained that they would study the issue for themselves, pray about it, compare it with Scripture and their existing understanding, and seek confirmation from the Spirit. We thought that was an interesting answer because there is a similar tension from our perspective. If we believe something has been established through Scripture and confirmed by the Spirit, and then someone claiming prophetic authority teaches something contrary to it, we would have to wrestle with that claim rather than simply accepting it. We talked about how, in a sense, Joseph Smith's teachings carry a kind of foundational authority for them that later prophetic statements might carry for us in a different context.

Overall, Viany, the two sisters, and I had a really thoughtful conversation. We didn't resolve all of our disagreements about Daniel 2, the kingdom of God, or the physical nature of God, but I think we made good progress by applying some theological pressure without jeopardizing our relational development. Since then, we’ve continued meeting with these sisters, so stay tuned in for more updates regarding our conversation with them!

Please pray that God would continue to open the hearts and minds of these sisters so they can see the truth of God with unveiled eyes as His Spirit reveals it to them. 

Please pray that they would be freed to think independently from the older members/leaders who have indiscriminately accepted the false doctrines of Jospeh Smith.