Hello everyone. Glad to be here.

[MansFriend]

Thank you for that very detailed explanation. I appreciate your efforts. Would I be right in assuming that your prophet Joseph Smith was the one through whom this scenario was postulated? I can find no reference to any of these things in the scripture that Jesus taught from (OT) nor can I find reference to any of it in the NT.

Yes, Joseph Smith Jr. was the Prophet of the Lord through whom these things were accomplished.

For the majority of those who classify themselves as "Christians", there is no acceptance of the writings of Joseph Smith at all except by those who believe that He was visited by an angel and given extra-Biblical instruction. Does that create problems when there appears to be no way to validate his writings except on faith that his 'visitor' was in fact not a figment of his imagination or from some other source? (Galatians 1:8 2 Corinthians 11:13-15)

As a general rule most Christians just think there won't be anymore true Prophets so they don't give much consideration to the possibility that God would indeed call a new Prophet. Those who do, and who are sincere, are those who choose to join the LDS faith.

The apostle Paul indicated that our last prophet was in fact Jesus himself. So we really have have no need of any others, (Hebrews 1:1-4) especially when they lead us in a completely different direction and concentrate primarily on one nation and tribes of people that no one has ever heard of and for whom there is no proof of their existence.

I don't find anything Paul said conclusive that the heavens would remain sealed up against all of mankind from then on. As I have come to understand the purpose of the mission of Jesus Christ was to rend the veil of separation between man and God. Thus, we have apostles, who are in their capacities prophets, and so that fathers can be the prophet of their own families, etc. When the Spirit of God is again given to man, which is what Jesus Christ brought, we all become prophets in our own spheres of responsibility. It just so happens that at any given time there is only one Prophet who is a Lord's Anointed Prophet who receives the oracles of the Lord. This is an office of responsibility that belongs to the sovereign Kingdom of Israel and so if Israel as a people are going to be restored and "resurrected" then so too would all of the offices of responsibility be restored to them.

After Israel dispersed from their homeland, God's people thereafter had no nation. As citizens of God's kingdom, Christians can't pledge allegiance to any earthly government. As "ambassadors for Christ" they must remain politically neutral. (2 Corinthians 5:20)

It is true that Christians are typified by what is talked about being brought to pass in Day 5 of the Creation account. It said that the "creatures in the waters wherein dwells the breath of life" would be brought to pass. Day 5 of the Creation account pertains to the 5th millennia of our current Creation and is exactly when the Christianity phase was performed. The whole point of Christianity was to point them forward to when they would indeed have the Father's Kingdom given to them so that there could be an entire restitution of all things, including the glory of the higher laws the children of Israel rejected in the beginning under Moses. It is the time of the dispensation of the fullness of times when all truths would be gathered together into one great whole. The Father's Kingdom is the fullness of all things and a time of great glory and peace, provided the warnings of Jesus are heeded in Luke 12. Jesus also warned if the people rejected the Father's servants and beat upon them instead of receiving them that they would bring a curse upon themselves and that they would be the ones who would be beaten with many stripes. From my point of view, the Christians were unwise and they had forgotten the whole point of the Gospel to look for the Father's Kingdom. They caused the new Adam's fall, so to speak. This is why it says that the harlot (apostate Christianity) rides the beast and persecutes and overcomes the Saints.

Would I be able to find this 'three kingdom' scenario outlined in the Bible if Joseph Smith had not written the BoM?

Yes, Paul taught about the varying levels of glory in the resurrection that are likened unto the sun, moon and stars. This is what the LDS call the Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms. These are what are spoken of in the Creation account where it talks about the "greater light to rule the day", the "lesser light to rule the night" and the "stars". These are all of the levels of glory in the heavenly "firmaments" to which people can attain to in their resurrection. There's quite a bit more to this that Christians, Jews and Muslims are unaware of. As I see it, they completely misunderstand that the Creation account all pertains to people. The physical cosmological stuff is all just the symbols that aren't the reality. They have not "cracked the code" so to speak. This is God's method of encrypting His message so that only those who are sincere, wise and humble and who truly seek His Truth will get the message, while everyone else remains in confusion.

Would I also be right in assuming that Mormons can weave the theme of these 'three kingdoms' vaguely into Biblical scripture?

That assumption would be incorrect if you did.

The basic problem with most religions, as I see it, particularly ones that claim to teach about Jesus Christ, is the basic belief in the existence of the human soul, that can exist outside of a body. This belief is not Biblical and never was. Jewish scripture does not teach that humans "have" a soul that can exist apart from the body. The Hebrew Scriptures teach that a body with spirit (breath) IS a "soul". Human souls, in the Bible, were always living, breathing, material beings. Yet this belief of life outside the physical body, permeates almost all religions....especially in paganism. It was entirely missing from the Hebrew scriptures. (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10)

I could possibly get into a really deep discussion about this but my time constraints don't allow me to right now.
In short, if someone exists at any point in time, then they exist eternally. Thus, whether or not a body is currently vivified with actual physical breath, the existence of that person't consciousness, which is a timeless aspect of their being, is accessible. There is also another way to look at it too. If a person has not attained to having the "breath of life" which is the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, then they never attained to spiritual life. Thus, they are like a zombie.

The second problem I see in your explanation is the inclusion of earthly kingdoms in God's rulership of his 'people'. When Jesus said that his kingdom was "no part of this world" (John 18:36) and that "the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one" (1 John 5:19) whom Paul identified as "the God of this world", (2 Corinthians 4:3, 4) I find it difficult to see anything in the rulership of this world as originating with God. In fact I see God actively eliminating all human rulership from existence when he brings his kingdom rule to the earth. (Daniel 2:44) What the world does is none of our business IMO.

The problem here is people do not understand what Jesus meant when he said "not of this world". The Kingdom over which Jesus shall rule pertains to the "world to come". And, so, this kingdom would not come here until the people were brought to the "new world". This is why upon the children of Israel coming over to the Americas and obtaining a "new world" that a new Adam would be sent and an entire new cycle of Creation would have its foundations laid. So, it was both a new Continent as well as an entirely new cycle of Creation. The Father's Kingdom is the kingdom of the "greater light to rule the day" who doesn't actually do so until the Day 1 of the Creation to follow. Jesus came on the 4th Day (4th millennia) but He won't actually rule and reign as the King of the Kingdom until the following cycles Day 1 when the "light" is divided from the "dark" and he has his kingdom. It's a bit more involved than this, but that is the general idea. The point is you need to know how things work in the Alpha/Omega phase of things when the Father and the Son (Son of Man) perform their great and marvelous work to overcome the Serpent and to bring in the Father's Kingdom in victory.

This is what was having its foundation laid by the calling and ministry of Joseph Smith Jr. The Melchizedek Priesthood Body and the Church Body that were established by way of his instrumentality are the new Adam and new Eve of the new heavens and the new earth spoken of in the book of Revelation. Chapter 21 IIRC. There's a ton more to this, but that would give you a glimpse to consider.

Also, tithing was a Jewish requirement, not incumbent on Christians. (2 Corinthians 9:7) There was no temple or earthly priesthood in 1st century Christianity. (Hebrews 9:11, 12, 24)

There are many other things that I see as conflicting with Bible teachings. To me, if something is in opposition to Christian teachings (from either Christ himself or any of those used to pen scripture) then that rings alarm bells for me......but to each his own.

There are not conflicts that I discern. There is a lot of information Christians are missing that causes them to stumble.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the "woman" prophesied of in Revelation that is driven out into the wilderness and goes through a period of tribulation and peril. This is the new Eve of the new Creation having its foundations laid right now. The new Garden of Eden was in Jackson County Missouri, and so on. History is in the process of repeating itself. The Bridegroom came but the vast majority of Christians didn't have oil in their lamps, and, sadly, for that matter, neither did most of the LDS recognize Him either. But, that brings in several more aspects of complication.