The irony of confidently telling Latter-day Saints what their own scriptures teach while apparently being unfamiliar with those scriptures is rather remarkable. 1 Nephi 11:21 calls Jesus "the Son of the Eternal Father." Mosiah 3:5 describes Him as the Lord Omnipotent, who "was, and is from all eternity to all eternity." 3 Nephi 9:15 records Jesus declaring, "I was with the Father from the beginning." Mosiah 15 teaches that God Himself came down among men, took upon Himself flesh, and redeemed His people. These teachings have been in the Book of Mormon since 1830. Now, if by "eternally begotten" you mean the specific Nicene doctrine of eternal generation within one indivisible divine essence, then yes, we have a theological disagreement. But that's not the same thing as denying Christ's eternal existence, divine Sonship, or His saving work. You've taken a particular theological explanation of HOW the Father and Son relate to one another and made acceptance of that explanation the test of whether someone believes the gospel. This was NOT in your explanation of what the gospel is... so now you are adding exceptions to that. And now you're calling people ignorant of their own religion because they don't accept YOUR interpretation. Perhaps the first step in identifying counterfeit Christianity should be accurately understanding what the other Christians actually believe.

“Joseph Smith just read 1 Corinthians 15 and invented three degrees of heaven.” I’ve heard this accusation repeatedly from critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But here’s a question: Have you ever actually investigated how the revelation of the three degrees of glory was received? Because the historical account is considerably more interesting than the caricature. On February 16, 1832, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were working on their inspired revision of the Bible in Hiram, Ohio. They were considering John 5:29, which speaks of the resurrection of the just and the unjust. What followed became one of the most remarkable revelations in Latter-day Saint history. And here’s the part that critics frequently overlook. Joseph Smith wasn’t alone. Sidney Rigdon reported experiencing the SAME vision. And there were other people in the room. One of those witnesses, Philo Dibble, later described what he observed. According to Dibble, Joseph and Sidney sat together, apparently looking into a vision that the others could not see. Joseph would describe something he was seeing. Sidney would respond: “I see the same.” Then Sidney would describe something. And Joseph would confirm: “I see the same.” Back and forth, they described the vision. In front of witnesses. The resulting revelation, now recorded as Doctrine and Covenants 76, describes the glory of Jesus Christ, the resurrection, the judgment, and the differing degrees of glory prepared for God’s children. Now, let’s be clear about something. You don’t have to believe their experience was divine. You can question the testimony. You can investigate the witnesses. You can examine the historical record. That’s perfectly fair. But claiming Joseph simply read one passage of Paul, invented a doctrine, and convinced everyone to accept it? That completely sidesteps what Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Philo Dibble actually reported. And it ignores the fact that the revelation was attributed to TWO men from the beginning. The historical question isn’t merely whether Joseph Smith could have interpreted 1 Corinthians 15 creatively. It’s whether the reported shared vision actually occurred as described. Those are very different questions. I find it fascinating how often people confidently explain the origins of Latter-day Saint doctrines without demonstrating any familiarity with the historical accounts surrounding them. You don’t have to accept the Restoration to investigate it honestly. And if you’re going to tell millions of Latter-day Saints where their beliefs came from, perhaps start by reading what the people involved actually said happened. Source: Joseph Smith Papers, “Vision, 16 February 1832 [D&C 76],” including the historical introduction and Philo Dibble’s later recollection.