Page 1 of 2

The First God

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:15 pm
by nick in hyrum
Mormon doctrine (official?? maybe, but definitely water cooler Mormonism) God was like us (or like Christ) on another world and ultimately became our God, I would like to know if there is any writings on the concept of the first God. It seems from Joseph's teaching that for our present God to exist, there must have been a world created for him to grow up in first. So in this case, the world existed, then God. Similarly, the first of all Gods must have been born on a planet that evolved per natural selection or some such. This individual must have excelled in that planet and ultimately began the chain of Gods of which, Heavenly Father is now the God of our Universe. Are there any Mormon writings on the subject of the first god? Or what are your own thoughts on the matter?

Re: The First God

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:57 pm
by harmony
We can't even get definitive writings on our own God, let alone the First God. Even Pres Hinckley doesn't konw what we teach about eternal progression, and if anyone should know, it's him!

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:35 pm
by Paul Osborne
There never was a first God. Our Father has an infiinte number of Fathers who came before him. This works on the same principle that there are an infinite number of Gods to come into existence (out of Father's loins) in which there never will be a last Father. Eternity future is no different than eternity past because they are just as long - eternal. To the natural man it makes no sense to think that there is no first Father but this is because the natural man is mortal, earthbound, and ignorant of divine eternal principles. Except for me, of course. I know better. Ain't that right, harmony, dear?

Paul O

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:42 pm
by Paul Osborne
We can't even get definitive writings on our own God, let alone the First God. Even Pres Hinckley doesn't konw what we teach about eternal progression, and if anyone should know, it's him!


Oh harmony, he is playing the press through carefully selected words and being wise like a serpent and harmless as a dove. Don't you get that? President Hinckley knows that God has a Father. He knows it has been taught and that it is established doctrine.

Paul O

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:42 pm
by Jersey Girl
Paul Osborne wrote:There never was a first God. Our Father has an infiinte number of Fathers who came before him. This works on the same principle that there are an infinite number of Gods to come into existence (out of Father's loins) in which there never will be a last Father. Eternity future is no different than eternity past because they are just as long - eternal. To the natural man it makes no sense to think that there is no first Father but this is because the natural man is mortal, earthbound, and ignorant of divine eternal principles. Except for me, of course. I know better. Ain't that right, harmony, dear?

Paul O


Are you saying that there is no first cause? Trying to understand.

Jersey Girl

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:00 pm
by Paul Osborne
Jersey,

There never was a first time, period. Our Father knows everything from here to eternity future. He sees and comprehends the endless spirits that will come forth from his loins and the loins of his children. Now, the Father’s Father also sees and comprehends the same – as does his Father, and his Father, and so on back into eternity.

All of us are eternal intelligences because we have been known in the minds of the Gods forever past. There never was a time when we were not known, loved, and seen. For the Gods, all things are as one eternal now – they see it all, forever and ever. The Fathers are caught up together as One - being infinite in number.

Paul O

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 4:31 pm
by Polygamy Porter
Paul Osborne wrote:
We can't even get definitive writings on our own God, let alone the First God. Even Pres Hinckley doesn't konw what we teach about eternal progression, and if anyone should know, it's him!


Oh harmony, he is playing the press through carefully selected words and being wise like a serpent and harmless as a dove. Don't you get that? President Hinckley knows that God has a Father. He knows it has been taught and that it is established doctrine.

Paul O
So in other words, old Gordo is lying for the lord? AKA Spin doc numero uno? Squirting some milk outta the udder before giving them a hunk of the rotting bovine flesh from the same DEAD cow?

I say curelom dung! He supposedly has hot chocolate in the holy of holies in the Salt Lake City masonic temple with Jebus himself, so if THAT is true, he knows...

and ferchristsakes, the last reverlation that he received was what? To build the great and spacious TV studio, the one with the podium made from the stupid tree in his yard... I guess that's his woodie.

As TSCC continues to attempt to enter the flowing stream of Christianity, they are finding that most do not like peculiar, therefore they are slowly but surely stripping off the "peculiarities".

that's all Christianity needs is a another BORING church!

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:34 pm
by Paul Osborne
Polygamy Porter,

Your sayings are on par with the filth that came out of the demon possessed girl on the Exorcist. You are possessed by an evil spirit.

Get out of the celestial forum, you wicked fiend from hell!

Paul O

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:15 pm
by harmony
Paul Osborne wrote:
We can't even get definitive writings on our own God, let alone the First God. Even Pres Hinckley doesn't konw what we teach about eternal progression, and if anyone should know, it's him!


Oh harmony, he is playing the press through carefully selected words and being wise like a serpent and harmless as a dove. Don't you get that? President Hinckley knows that God has a Father. He knows it has been taught and that it is established doctrine.

Paul O


Well, there's a problem with that, Paul. If we do indeed have the truth of all things (of which eternal progression is one), then why hide it? why play fast and loose with the truth? Why not proclaim it to the rooftops? Why hide our light under a bushel? There should never be a time when the prophet feels obligated to lie. The Lord's truth needs no lies, no prevarication, no PR! Get up and shout "Yes, it is true that God was once a man, and YES, we teach that! Let me show you how you too can become a god!" Why be ashamed of what we teach? Why prevaricate? Why play the press? Why play anyone? Don't we have the truth? Are we ashamed of the truth????

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:52 am
by Paul Osborne
harmony,

The President of the Church is responsible for how the Church will be represented on the highest level of public discourse. I really can’t speak for the prophet as to why he crafted his words in order to slip away from the question at hand but I feel it was an effort to avoid the noise uttered on housetops. Probably the press would have had a field day and front page news would spoil many opportunities for the missionaries to enter into the homes of many of the honest in heart. The deepest doctrines are not easily perceived by those who tread on shallow waters.

You will recall that even Jesus was careful in his selection of words while dealing with the scribes and those who acted as pressman. I don’t think it’s necessary to cite a specific example – Jesus of Nazareth chose his words carefully. He needed to perform his ministry and that took three years. Had he been too outspoken in the beginning they may have killed him earlier – but as it was no one had power over the Son of Man except those to whom he granted.

I don’t have all the answers. However, I do know in my heart that Gordon B. Hinckley is ministering by the Spirit according to God’s design.

Paul O

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:42 pm
by Dr. Shades
Paul Osborne wrote:The President of the Church is responsible for how the Church will be represented on the highest level of public discourse.


Did Abinadi care how the church would be represented on the highest level of public discourse, or did he boldly declare the truth of God?

You will recall that even Jesus was careful in his selection of words while dealing with the scribes and those who acted as pressman.


But did He ever say anything which was untrue?

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:16 pm
by Paul Osborne
Did Abinadi care how the church would be represented on the highest level of public discourse, or did he boldly declare the truth of God?


You can ask him in the afterlife. I'm not going to speak for him.

But did He ever say anything which was untrue?


Yes, he said it was ok to eat with unwashed hands. The fact is, it's not ok. I don't think Jesus knew about germs.

But that's all beside the point. I wasn't there to hear everything Jesus ever said and did. What little records we have is just the tip of a big iceberg. We know very little about what Jesus said to the Jews.

Paul O

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:51 pm
by Upon the Mount of Olives
Paul Osborne wrote:There never was a first God. Our Father has an infiinte number of Fathers who came before him. This works on the same principle that there are an infinite number of Gods to come into existence (out of Father's loins) in which there never will be a last Father. Eternity future is no different than eternity past because they are just as long - eternal. To the natural man it makes no sense to think that there is no first Father but this is because the natural man is mortal, earthbound, and ignorant of divine eternal principles. Except for me, of course. I know better. Ain't that right, harmony, dear?

Paul O


Did you watch "The Revenge of The Nerds" and think that 'Ogre' was inspired when he said "What if C-A-T really spelled dog?"

Big difference between things that you can 'know' and things that you feel or believe.

The Beginning

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:22 pm
by Gazelam
From the Psalm of Thomas

"Conciousness is expanded. the worlds of darkness gathered and beheld his brightness. They breathed his fragrance and orbited about him and bowed anew and worshipped him."

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:25 am
by Paul Osborne
Big difference between things that you can 'know' and things that you feel or believe.


I agree. The word "know" is bounced around a little too much in Mormonism. I'm careful not to overuse it. Using the word belief is often a better word to use.

But what about someone who has seen angels? Do they know or believe? Further, what about someone who has seen angels together at the same time and place with someone else? Is that not outside the realm of mere belief? It's reasonable to think that those persons know that angels exist, right?

Paul O

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:39 am
by Yoda
Paul Osborne wrote:There never was a first God. Our Father has an infiinte number of Fathers who came before him. This works on the same principle that there are an infinite number of Gods to come into existence (out of Father's loins) in which there never will be a last Father. Eternity future is no different than eternity past because they are just as long - eternal. To the natural man it makes no sense to think that there is no first Father but this is because the natural man is mortal, earthbound, and ignorant of divine eternal principles. Except for me, of course. I know better. Ain't that right, harmony, dear?

Paul O


Now, Paul....brace yourself....don't faint...but this is one topic I actually AGREE with you about! LOL

Is lightening flashing? ;)

The eternal nature of God and man is something that we, as mortal beings, cannot wrap our minds around. This is one truth that will make perfect sense to us when the veil is lifted, but is impossible for us to comprehend now.

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:06 am
by Nortinski
Paul Osborne wrote:Oh harmony, he is playing the press through carefully selected words and being wise like a serpent and harmless as a dove. Don't you get that? President Hinckley knows that God has a Father. He knows it has been taught and that it is established doctrine.

Paul O


Ozzy, you're mistaken. Hinckley himself said he doesn't know that. Here's the quote:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follett discourse by the Prophet.

Hinckley: Yeah

Q: ... about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

Hinckley: I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it.


So, we're to believe that Hinckley doesn't "...know all the circumstances under which [the King Follett discourse] was made"?!?!? I've been pretty familiar with "the circumstances" that discourse was made since I was a Deacon. He's a lying rat bastard.

Nort

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:53 am
by Paul Osborne
Nort,

You miserable worm, don’t you have enough sense to understand basic common sense?

“I don't know that we teach it”

The prophet isn’t aware of every specific point of doctrine discussed throughout the classes, quorums, and institutes within the worldwide Church. How can he say whether the point of doctrine in question is discussed? Is he there? Is he present? No, he is not.

“I don't know that we emphasize it”

If and when such doctrine is taught in any of the various assemblies throughout the Church the prophet can’t guage how much it’s emphasized. Whether it is said in passing or touched upon heavily is something the prophet just doesn’t know. He is not the all seeing eye.

“I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse”

He is correct about that. The last time he mentioned it in General Conference was in 1994.

“I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made.”

Here we have a prophet that readily admits that he doesn’t know everything. That is fine by me.

“I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it.”

Yes, the prophet does understand the fundamental philosophy of this doctrine. How well others do is anyone’s guess. The prophet can’t speak for others regarding how well they understand this doctrine or how much they know about it. This doctrine is set within an eternal framework and there is no man on this earth that knows a lot about that, including the prophet.

Now, Nort – you are a wicked worm. Repent if you know what’s good for you. Time is ticking away and the night soon comes when all will be dark.

Paul O

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:58 am
by Paul Osborne
Now, Paul....brace yourself....don't faint...but this is one topic I actually AGREE with you about! LOL


Liz,

You are therefore a member in the club of outspoken Internet Mormons who believe this doctrine. I haven't met very many who are in this club. Congrats!

Paul O

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:03 am
by Nortinski
Paul Osborne wrote:Nort,

You miserable worm, don’t you have enough sense to understand basic common sense?

“I don't know that we teach it”

The prophet isn’t aware of every specific point of doctrine discussed throughout the classes, quorums, and institutes within the worldwide Church. How can he say whether the point of doctrine in question is discussed? Is he there? Is he present? No, he is not.

“I don't know that we emphasize it”

If and when such doctrine is taught in any of the various assemblies throughout the Church the prophet can’t guage how much it’s emphasized. Whether it is said in passing or touched upon heavily is something the prophet just doesn’t know. He is not the all seeing eye.

“I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse”

He is correct about that. The last time he mentioned it in General Conference was in 1994.

“I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made.”

Here we have a prophet that readily admits that he doesn’t know everything. That is fine by me.

“I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it.”

Yes, the prophet does understand the fundamental philosophy of this doctrine. How well others do is anyone’s guess. The prophet can’t speak for others regarding how well they understand this doctrine or how much they know about it. This doctrine is set within an eternal framework and there is no man on this earth that knows a lot about that, including the prophet.

Now, Nort – you are a wicked worm. Repent if you know what’s good for you. Time is ticking away and the night soon comes when all will be dark.

Paul O



Sorry, Ozzy. Your "Prophet" is a lying bastard that refuses to admit that Mormons believe that God grew into Godhood and that they think they can become God's themselves. He's a douche and YOU'RE his bag.

Nort

Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:39 pm
by Paul Osborne
Snort,

You're simply full of vomit and covered by flies. How about you read the teachings of President Gordon B. Hinckley before you make such a stupid remark? You don't seem to be very intelligent. You are a sinful person, a jester of Satan - full of iniquity, abomination, and filth. You will go to hell unless you repent. Yes, I have judged you this day and my judgment is just. You are an enemy of Jesus Christ.

Paul O