Are there greater Gods out there.

[ronism99403]

Was Heavenly Father first created a man like Adam by someone greater than himself, and did he need to go through a probationary period to obtain Godhood, or has he always been God with no other greater than he?

[Guest]

As far as we are concerned, Heavenly Father is it. How he became our Heavenly Father is up to speculation.

[Justice]

No.

[ronism99403]

As far as we are concerned, Heavenly Father is it. How he became our Heavenly Father is up to speculation.

Perhaps I should rephrase the question. Did Heavenly Father become God or has he always been God?

[not_ashamed]

That's a darn good question. One I have been wondering about myself. I remember as a kid, in a different denomination than Mormonism, i asked my preacher once where God came from. He told me I would go to hell for asking such questions. I was so relieved to find the Mormon church and realize it was okay to ask questions about divinity. As for this question, I've never found anyone with a clear answer.

[Dr T]

The answer is "God always was and there are no others." Not "There are no others that we have anything to do with" or anything like that. God is GOD and has always been God, and will always be GOD.

[InquisitiveSoul]

I love these questions. I always wonder where did it all begin? The answer of course, it always was, which makes me ask how could it always be if there was no beginning? It's a never ending circle and one we won't clearly understand in this life.

[JonboySquarepants]

joseph smith taught that God was not always a God and that He had to learn from his God. whether the church is true or not, i'm staying away from that question. :)i'm only saying that as far as this question goes, joseph smith taught that God the Father was not always a God.

[Elgama]

OK Entirely personal way of seeing it there is only one God, just like Jesus is one with the Father, the Father will be one with any other god. As a result there is no greater God and there was nothing before God because all that make up God is God.,

Does any of that make the remotest sense lol?

[Maureen]

No.

Wow, that really clears things up.

M.

[Justice]

OK, M... you first.

[Javajot]

A wise man once said, "As man is now, God once was. As God is now man may become." Does that answer your question?

[HiJolly]

joseph smith taught that God was not always a God and that He had to learn from his God. whether the church is true or not, i'm staying away from that question. :)i'm only saying that as far as this question goes, joseph smith taught that God the Father was not always a God.

I think a bit more needs to be said on this point.

I don't think it's fair to say what I have underlined above, because Joseph also taught that each one of us started as intelligence which was co-eternal with God. Therefore, God the Father as a mortal would have also been God all the while, due to being co-equal with God as intelligence.

Just as you yourself, having intelligence, are God even now. Step outside of time. Are you God, or are you not? Of course you are. This is a major departure from the creedal Christian traditions we see today. To them, God is one of a kind and we are not that. To us, God, angels and we too are not only of a kind, but are Family.

Being 'other' from God is an outcome of creation ex nihilo theology, which of course we LDS also do not believe in.

HiJolly

[Seminarysnoozer]

I've heard others liken it to the way we see a previous Bishop we've had, we still call him Bishop, or if it's a previous Stake President we still call him President etc. Could it be that once the title of "God" is obtained it is always a title used even though there is only one God at any one time just like there is only one President of the church? ... just a thought.

[Tarnished]

I take John 5:19 "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. " to mean that Jesus does what he has seen the Father do. This could mean that he is following the same pattern that God took. In truth we won't know until probably after the second coming.

[WindRiver]

The patriarchal order / eternal family goes eternally in both directions, so yes OUR Father in heaven must logically also have a Father of His spirit, to whom He defers all glory or at least at some point deferred all glory to, just as Christ does to Him.

The key to keeping this all sorted out is that we only have ONE Father in heaven and we will eternally be His spirit children and will eternally worship Him even when / if we are co-equal again with him. We are not going to ever skip a generation and pray to or worship our Grandfather in Heaven.

[justaname]

Which is sillier. . . The fact that someone thinks someone here can answer questions like this, or the fact that some people here think it can be answered?

[Tarnished]

Which is sillier. . . The fact that someone thinks someone here can answer questions like this, or the fact that some people here think it can be answered?

I ask myself that same question for most of the topics brought up in the LDS Gospel Discussion board. Pure speculation seems to a hobby for many people.

[FunkyTown]

I ask myself that same question for most of the topics brought up in the LDS Gospel Discussion board. Pure speculation seems to a hobby for many people.

Pseudo-doctrine is a passionate subject for many LDS members. I think pseudo-doctrine can potentially chase converts away and I strongly dislike it.

Nobody knows the answers to these questions. And when I say that, I will usually have somebody say that I don't know the answers to these questions, but that others have been blessed to know the answers. Usually hinting that it was they, themselves, who know.

But they don't. If the brethren with the keys to know those things knew it, it would no longer be pseudo-doctrine.

It would be doctrine.

[InquisitiveSoul]

Pseudo-doctrine is a passionate subject for many LDS members. I think pseudo-doctrine can potentially chase converts away and I strongly dislike it.

Nobody knows the answers to these questions. And when I say that, I will usually have somebody say that I don't know the answers to these questions, but that others have been blessed to know the answers. Usually hinting that it was they, themselves, who know.

But they don't. If the brethren with the keys to know those things knew it, it would no longer be pseudo-doctrine.

It would be doctrine.

Pseudo-doctrine can definetly chase or slow ones progress into the church. It slowed me down for many years as did the fact that many of the Missionaries I met were unable to seperate doctrine from speculation they had heard. Additionally, Elders who were completely unaware of polygamy and other issues from the past also slowed my progression. I had to do a lot of extra research to resolve the problems I had and I would suspect many investigators quit before they go so far.

Even now there are areas I run across in old notes where I'm uncertain if it's offical doctrine or speculation based on comments an apostle made at some point in his life. I remember talking with one member about the last days and he continued to quote from a book written by a man who I believe was a Seminary teacher. I don't recall the name, but Ezra Taft Benson wrote the forward and to this good brother, the fact that President Benson wrote the forward made the book pure doctrine.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Which is sillier. . . The fact that someone thinks someone here can answer questions like this, or the fact that some people here think it can be answered?

That would be silly to view this as an answer forum. I look at it as a discussion forum. It is here to, possibly, expand one's areas of pondering. Conclusions, if any, still would come from your own heart and understanding.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Pseudo-doctrine is a passionate subject for many LDS members. I think pseudo-doctrine can potentially chase converts away and I strongly dislike it.

Nobody knows the answers to these questions. And when I say that, I will usually have somebody say that I don't know the answers to these questions, but that others have been blessed to know the answers. Usually hinting that it was they, themselves, who know.

But they don't. If the brethren with the keys to know those things knew it, it would no longer be pseudo-doctrine.

It would be doctrine.

I think it is only "pseudo-doctrine" if that person really believes it. If the person presents it as "I wonder about this..", I think that is healthy. Let's not forget that is how the restoration of the gospel started, that is LDS culture, to ponder and wonder and want to understand more.

The other benefit sometimes, is to be able to come to the conclusion of what is known and what is not known. Sometimes, there is a bit of a "testimony" as to what has not yet been revealed that has to come about the same way which is by pondering it and asking questions and discussing it, then praying about it.

[Elgama]

Pseudo-doctrine is a passionate subject for many LDS members. I think pseudo-doctrine can potentially chase converts away and I strongly dislike it.

Nobody knows the answers to these questions. And when I say that, I will usually have somebody say that I don't know the answers to these questions, but that others have been blessed to know the answers. Usually hinting that it was they, themselves, who know.

But they don't. If the brethren with the keys to know those things knew it, it would no longer be pseudo-doctrine.

It would be doctrine.

unusually I disagree with you FT lol its not pseudo doctrine its generally a search for answers, and wonder, natural inquisitiveness is good. I love that Latter Day Saints can have these discussions and I know as many converts that the freedom of the Latter Day Saints to learn and grow has attracted them and helped them grow closer to God as long as we state first this is my personal understanding that is fine and as long as it doesn't contradict doctrine

Each of us is at a different stage in our development, I go through swings and roundabouts myself, sometimes I wonder, sometimes I am happy with the answer because God says so. The discussion of personal understandings of doctrine is how we grow.

Also as LDS we are entitled to personal revelation as we read the scriptures even with personal revelation I find my understanding of an issue changes over time

[MaMeeshkaMow]

The answer is......no mortal knows. The veil is placed upon us, I think, not because God wants us to forget, but rather to learn and focus on things important NOW. This mortal life is a tiny fragment of existence, but the one that has the most weight in our salvation. Once that weight is lifted through the atonement/salvation, things will be added unto us, including knowledge about origins and such. I think those answers will come after.

[Maureen]

OK, M... you first.

Justice, the OP asks a "choice" question - "Is it this or is it that?" and you answer by saying No. How does that help?

M.