On The First Cause

[Serg]

While reasoning the matter of God, i encountered this;

'But think it through. Mormon theology makes it essential for all gods to been men. So where did the first man come from?

Notwithstanding the protests of Orson Pratt, that is, the philosophical mistake of Mormonism – there is There is, therefore, no Creator! No [b]First Cause! In reality, there is no God as defined by any rational definition.

Joseph Smith's god who "found himself" in the beginning is not good enough. Where is the Creator? Joseph Smith said he had a doctrine calculated to exalt man:

… the soul – the mind of man – the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the very idea lessens men in my estimation…. The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself. (12)

Mormonism's failure is its inability to push itself back philosophically to the beginning.God cannot have had a grandfather. Nothing can predate Him. Any being predating Him would Himself be God. God must be the Being beyond which no greater can be imagined. If something is bigger than your god, you are worshipping a demi-god.

Now, my reaction concerning this claim of anti-mormonism:

Although we might believe in a plurality of Gods, in which case, Elohim has a Father and so on(backtrack in Timeless existence), yet we don have to consider such Beings different in glory or Deity, all the Gods must be Gods, not one of them Greater as it predates the later one(in case of Elohim), such as Christ is One in the same Golry and Deity as Father, yet we are to be te same concerning Christ(that is -Gods also). In this, of course, such claims hold nothing worth. Nevertheless, here we are considering a claim that can in deed put us to think.

On the matter of the "philosophical beginning", and the "First Cause", they seem to really have a point(let us be sincere). Although we may claim that Elohim is the First "Cause" for the PROCESS of creation(reorganization) of this earth(indeed done by Christ), we yet have to admit some things;

a) that Elohim is absent from the creation of coming to existance of matter(eternal or spiritual matter)

B) that He is not a Cause for such existance , hence its outside His control, hence it predates(or at least coexists with him)

As coexistance may "resolve"(this is-delay) the problem(better we say "situation"),we have to deal with the fact, or predating Beings. This is, Gods existing before (our) first Cause(Elohim). While this lessens in no way the Deity of Elohim, it truly makes it complicated to define "First cause". If we had left Elohim alone with us, and not suggested(or TAUGHT) the preexistence of Ruling Entities before Elohim, we might have had a good case. However we are left to deal reasonably with this.

While Joseph Smith is said to have claimed this(in discourses-Folliett- teachings to leaders-Young/Fielding Smith-scripture "understanding' as Apc.1:6-8"tha Father of God the Father" etc..) we may argue that it is not "doctrine". Yet, it is taught in the Church. Yes, indeed in hymns, manuals, and expressions od Leaders. What is left? Scriptures. Although they do not hold that God had a beggining or a Father, yet we see(in D&C) it hold th eternity and hence coexistence of matter (and spirits) with God(Elohim).

In the Temple, during the endowment, in th evideo we see(or previous "Salt lake city"live action)we saw, that it taught that Lucipher told Eve how Elohim had to do likewise(eat of the fruit) in order to achive Godhood. While this is no offensive to us(latter day saints) it is indeed controversial, while dealing with the eternity of the First Cause.In fact, if we draw the logical(not necesarrly truthful) line of Cosmology, we find, a chain of Gods backwards in Eternity, that has no end, hence, no possible "First" Cause. As Joseph Smith taught. "as you see thir ring", it cannot have a beginning(First Cause-First Creator-First God) as it has no end. For if it had a beginning(First Cause-First Creator-First God) it shall have an end". However logical this may sound to us(as proof of our preexistance), it is not logical in defining the First cause. Alma held that th ecreation was an observable sign of the existance of a Creator using th eexistance of matter to sustain it:

Alma 30: 44

But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

The two reasons Alma finds here to defend the "denoted" existance of a Creator(First Cause) are:

1) the matter(the earth and THINGS upon it)

2) the design of things(matter-the movements of planets, orbits, order, etc..)

While our position of the Endless chain of Gods, can actually contain the second claim, it holds not necesarrily the first. We attribute to Elohim (our local Cause), a great Order and Design in our universe, including orbits, cicles of nature, etc.. But we do not attribute Him the claim(in order to be considered by Alma as the supreme Creator) the first claim, the one consisting of the denoted existance of Him through the existance(or creation) of the elements(the earth and all upon it). We in fact, teach that God "cannot create matter or intelligence", hence, in that respect he is no more of a First Cause to the world, as a carpinter to a wooden box. Yet, the carpinter believes in an even supreme Cause .

In conclusion, and with this I intend to call upon you all Latter day saints that want to discuss tis VITAL issue, how do we then justify, or describe, or define or believe in a First Cause if we in fact, do not(in terms of logic and general deity philosophy)? How do we justify our cherished beliefs in Elohim and yet reconcile it with the hard conception of NO beginning?

Thank you.

[Ray]

Perhaps if you’ll think about trying to define what you mean when you say “First Cause”, for instance, by thinking about “First cause of what?”, God will help answer your question as you seek your answers from Him.

To my understanding, there never was a beginning to everything, because some things have always been, so perhaps the question to ask God and think about is what first caused us to be God’s children.

Can I have my piece of cake now please?

[shanstress70]

Can I have my piece of cake now please?

Here's your darn coconut cake, Ray!

[Serg]

Perhaps if you’ll think about trying to define what you mean when you say “First Cause”, for instance, by thinking about “First cause of what?”, God will help answer your question as you seek your answers from Him.

To my understanding, there never was a beginning to everything, because some things have always been, so perhaps the question to ask God and think about is what first caused us to be God’s children.

Can I have my piece of cake now please?

That of the cake....is funny.

As to th eSERIOIS reason that brought us here:

When we are dealing with a First Cause, Ray, we are dealing with THE "Frist Cause", as it states. A FIRST Cause for EVERYTHING. For matter, for planets, for all spiritual existance, etc... I already explained how the logic reasons go, im just waiting for someone to reason here

PD: I have praid, guess what? Nothing. This is not a matter of life and death to me, that I shuold keep bothering the Lord, but is a matter of life and death to me, concerning MY personal and reasonal understanding of eternal truths, which i wanted to bring here. If for every doubt that i (or any one else) has and brings it here, we should tell them to go and ask the Lord, why then have this forum? I posted it, and I want someone who could point to some direction(in terms of studies, etc...).

D&C 50:

And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us areason• together, that ye may understand;

11 Let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face.

12 Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of man, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord, reason with you that you may understand.

Such pretty words, His words...

Regards,

[Ray]

That of the cake....is funny.

Heh, why did you say that was funny? I simply want some cake, and preferably coconut cake.

And Shannon, I want the real thing now and that counterfeit just doesn’t cut it.

When we are dealing with a First Cause, Ray, we are dealing with THE "First Cause", as it states. A FIRST Cause for EVERYTHING. For matter, for planets, for all spiritual existence, etc... I already explained how the logic reasons go, I’m just waiting for someone to reason here

Serg,

I suggest that you try to wrap your thoughts around the idea that some things have ALWAYS existed, which means there was NEVER a first cause for those things, because those things have ALWAYS been and NEVER were created.

But was there a first cause which caused a planet to be created? Yes.

And was there a first cause which caused us to be created as spirit children of God? Yes.

But the elements and intelligence and all the other basic building blocks of all things were not created because those things have always been.

And to say something more in response to your question I’ll give you these other ideas to think about:

God does not create intelligence, because intelligence cannot be created, although intelligence can become “one” with other intelligence to become even more intelligent.

You have heard someone say that the glory of God is intelligence, haven’t you?

What did you think he meant by that while knowing that intelligence is light and truth?

And btw, all those scriptures you quoted were from our Lord suggesting that we should reason with Him, not that you or I should only use our own reasoning or the reasoning of other men.

And I still want some coconut cake. :)

p.s. I'm giving you a link to some other ideas that will help as you reason with our Lord for INTELLIGENCE

[shanstress70]

Ray, take your wife a bunch of pretty flowers when you go home today. Ask her if you can do anything to help around the house. Offer to cook dinner, or take her out to dinner. Then ask her to bake you a coconut cake, and I bet she would be happy to!

[Ray]

Okay, one more time, Serg, since I know you won’t be satisfied with what I’ve already told you.

Serg: 'Mormon theology makes it essential for all gods to have been men. So where did the first man come from?

There never was a first man, because men have always been, just as there never was a first god, because gods have always been. But was there ever a first man on this Earth? Yes, named Adam.

Notwithstanding the protests of Orson Pratt, that is, the philosophical mistake of Mormonism – there is There is, therefore, no Creator! No First Cause! In reality, there is no God as defined by any rational definition.

I’d like to see that quote from Orson Pratt, without someone else’s interpretation, because in reality there is a true God and we can define Him as we know Him by our rational senses with inspiration from Him.

Joseph Smith's god who "found himself" in the beginning is not good enough. Where is the Creator? Joseph Smith said he had a doctrine calculated to exalt man:

… the soul – the mind of man – the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the very idea lessens men in my estimation…. The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself.

Yes. Everything Joseph said in that quote is true. What problem do you have with it?

Mormonism's failure is its inability to push itself back philosophically to the beginning.

Heh, the person who wrote these words simply failed to understand “Mormonism”, or perhaps he or she simply didn’t understand that not all things have a beginning.

God cannot have had a grandfather. Nothing can predate Him. Any being predating Him would Himself be God. God must be the Being beyond which no greater can be imagined. If something is bigger than your god, you are worshipping a demi-god.

More evidence of the fact that this person is limited in his or her knowledge of God and our nature and religion. And to try to say this simply, nothing is bigger or better than God, whether God is a Father or a Son.

Although we might believe in a plurality of Gods, in which case, Elohim has a Father and so on(backtrack in Timeless existence), yet we don have to consider such Beings different in glory or Deity, all the Gods must be Gods, not one of them Greater as it predates the later one(in case of Elohim), such as Christ is One in the same Glory and Deity as Father, yet we are to be the same concerning Christ (that is -Gods also).

Good going to this point, Serg. There is nothing wrong with your statements just quoted.

On the matter of the "philosophical beginning", and the "First Cause", they seem to really have a point (let us be sincere). Although we may claim that Elohim is the First "Cause" for the PROCESS of creation (reorganization) of this earth (indeed done by Christ), we yet have to admit some things:

a ) that Elohim is absent from the creation of coming to existence of matter (eternal or spiritual matter)

b ) that He is not a Cause for such existence , hence its outside His control, hence it predates (or at least coexists with him)

All good to this point, except for what I think you are stating in saying that matter is out of God’s control, because God does in fact control matter.

As co-existence may "resolve" (this is-delay) the problem (better we say "situation"),we have to deal with the fact, of predating Beings. This is, Gods existing before (our) first Cause (Elohim). While this lessens in no way the Deity of Elohim, it truly makes it complicated to define "First cause". If we had left Elohim alone with us, and not suggested (or TAUGHT) the preexistence of Ruling Entities before Elohim, we might have had a good case. However we are left to deal reasonably with this.

Pretty much everything you said in this statement is true too, except for your idea that there was a time before there was Elohim, or that other beings existed before Him… because Elohim has always been.

While Joseph Smith is said to have claimed this (in discourses-Follett- teachings to leaders-Young/Fielding Smith-scripture "understanding' as Apc.1:6-8"tha Father of God the Father" etc..) we may argue that it is not "doctrine". Yet, it is taught in the Church. Yes, indeed in hymns, manuals, and expressions of Leaders.

Since you seem to have some misunderstandings of our doctrine, please specify what is actually being taught.

Although they <the scriptures> do not hold that God had a beginning or a Father, yet we see (in D&C) it hold th eternity and hence coexistence of matter (and spirits) with God (Elohim).

Please rephrase this statement. It’s too garbled for me to translate it perfectly.

In the Temple, during the endowment, in the video we see(or previous "Salt lake city" live action) we saw, that it taught that Lucifer told Eve how Elohim had to do likewise(eat of the fruit) in order to achieve Godhood. While this is no offensive to us (latter day saints) it is indeed controversial, while dealing with the eternity of the First Cause.

The first cause of what? And btw, please don’t mention anything you have seen in the temple with outsiders again.

In fact, if we draw the logical (not necessarily truthful) line of Cosmology, we find, a chain of Gods backwards in Eternity, that has no end, hence, no possible "First" Cause.

Again, the first cause of what?

As Joseph Smith taught. "as you see this ring", it cannot have a beginning (First Cause-First Creator-First God) as it has no end. For if it had a beginning (First Cause-First Creator-First God) it shall have an end". However logical this may sound to us (as proof of our pre-existence <or premortality>), it is not logical in defining the First cause.

Again, the first cause of what? There is no first cause to God, or Man, because we have always been… although there was a first God and Man on this Earth, and I'm sure you know whose those were.

Alma held that the creation was an observable sign of the existence of a Creator using the existence of matter to sustain it:

Alma 30: 44

But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

The two reasons Alma finds here to defend the "denoted" existence of a Creator(First Cause) are:

1) the matter (the earth and THINGS upon it)

2) the design of things(matter-the movements of planets, orbits, order, etc..)

While our position of the Endless chain of Gods, can actually contain the second claim, it holds not necessarily the first. We attribute to Elohim (our local Cause), a great Order and Design in our universe, including orbits, circles of nature, etc.. But we do not attribute Him the claim (in order to be considered by Alma as the supreme Creator) the first claim, the one consisting of the denoted existence of Him through the existence (or creation) of the elements (the earth and all upon it). We in fact, teach that God "cannot create matter or intelligence", hence, in that respect he is no more of a First Cause to the world, as a carpenter to a wooden box. Yet, the carpenter believes in an even supreme Cause

Again, the first cause of what?

In conclusion, and with this I intend to call upon you all Latter day saints that want to discuss this VITAL issue, how do we then justify, or describe, or define or believe in a First Cause if we in fact, do not(in terms of logic and general deity philosophy)? How do we justify our cherished beliefs in Elohim and yet reconcile it with the hard conception of NO beginning?

Thank you.

Please see my comments above, while seeking further light and truth from God.

Shannon:

Ray, take your wife a bunch of pretty flowers when you go home today. Ask her if you can do anything to help around the house. Offer to cook dinner, or take her out to dinner. Then ask her to bake you a coconut cake, and I bet she would be happy to!

We go out together every Friday night, and I always help around the house. And yes, I know, when I ask her for a cake, she'll bake it very happily because I asked. And my wife is an excellent baker. :)

... but I also want you guys to give me a cake, for my going away present, before parting.

[shanstress70]

... but I also want you guys to give me a cake, for my going away present, before parting.

Yep, cause you're REALLY leaving this time... right?

[Ray]

Yes. With or without a cake. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Let me see if I understand the distinction between LDS and traditional Christian teaching, related to FIRST CAUSE:

1. In LDS theology there is no First Cause, because all the Gods, including Elohim, and indeed all of us, have an essence that is eternal. In other words, that are lots of beings that have always been--that had no cause or beginning.

2. In most traditional Christian theologies, God is the First Cause. Only He has always been. Everything else was created, and had a beginning.

BTW, I'd prefer tiramasu, but will take coconut, if there's some left over.

[Traveler]

The concept of first cause has the same problem as the Big Bang. That problem is the event horizon. The event horizon is that point at which we cannot see or comprehend (logically conclude) what happened before. Take for example the creation. Many religious theories define G-d as the creator, but this is a two edge sword. Before the creation, what was G-d? He was not a creator? Therefore if creation is what defines G-d for you and since there was not a creator prior to creation so therefore there was no G-d. Regardless of how you shape it there was no creating G-d. And since G-d is eternal something would have to change him or there would be no creation because prior to the first cause, there was no creation. If G-d is the first cause then prior to the creation there was no G-d.

Next is the problem of G-d being all wise. But if creation was wise there was no all wisdom before the creation. At least wisdom that created which was lacking in G-d. We can play this game with just about anything with which most religions define G-d. And the problem gets worse. Most modern religions believe G-d is eternal which also means the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. If that is the case then the creation cannot be the beginning but instead an isotropic constant which itself is eternal. If G-d is eternal and does not change then everything he does is in reality also eternal - there can be no such thing as a beginning as most religions define it..

I find the concept G-d in the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS most interesting and fun. I love the freedom of thought it brings to reach into eternity in any direction. Yet it provides a wonderful foundation for creation as well as destiny and purpose of creation that is divinely natural for man that is the very image of G-d. I like the idea that when he calls us his children that he is not pretending, just kidding, exaggerating or just being in any way deceptive - he is divulging a great secret and a eternal truth that has no beginning.

The Traveler

[Serg]

Okay, one more time, Serg, since I know you won’t be satisfied with what I’ve already told you.

Serg: 'Mormon theology makes it essential for all gods to have been men. So where did the first man come from?

There never was a first man, because men have always been, just as there never was a first god, because gods have always been. But was there ever a first man on this Earth? Yes, named Adam.

Notwithstanding the protests of Orson Pratt, that is, the philosophical mistake of Mormonism – there is There is, therefore, no Creator! No First Cause! In reality, there is no God as defined by any rational definition.

I’d like to see that quote from Orson Pratt, without someone else’s interpretation, because in reality there is a true God and we can define Him as we know Him by our rational senses with inspiration from Him.

Joseph Smith's god who "found himself" in the beginning is not good enough. Where is the Creator? Joseph Smith said he had a doctrine calculated to exalt man:

… the soul – the mind of man – the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the very idea lessens men in my estimation…. The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself.

Yes. Everything Joseph said in that quote is true. What problem do you have with it?

Mormonism's failure is its inability to push itself back philosophically to the beginning.

Heh, the person who wrote these words simply failed to understand “Mormonism”, or perhaps he or she simply didn’t understand that not all things have a beginning.

God cannot have had a grandfather. Nothing can predate Him. Any being predating Him would Himself be God. God must be the Being beyond which no greater can be imagined. If something is bigger than your god, you are worshipping a demi-god.

More evidence of the fact that this person is limited in his or her knowledge of God and our nature and religion. And to try to say this simply, nothing is bigger or better than God, whether God is a Father or a Son.

Although we might believe in a plurality of Gods, in which case, Elohim has a Father and so on(backtrack in Timeless existence), yet we don have to consider such Beings different in glory or Deity, all the Gods must be Gods, not one of them Greater as it predates the later one(in case of Elohim), such as Christ is One in the same Glory and Deity as Father, yet we are to be the same concerning Christ (that is -Gods also).

Good going to this point, Serg. There is nothing wrong with your statements just quoted.

On the matter of the "philosophical beginning", and the "First Cause", they seem to really have a point (let us be sincere). Although we may claim that Elohim is the First "Cause" for the PROCESS of creation (reorganization) of this earth (indeed done by Christ), we yet have to admit some things:

a ) that Elohim is absent from the creation of coming to existence of matter (eternal or spiritual matter)

b ) that He is not a Cause for such existence , hence its outside His control, hence it predates (or at least coexists with him)

All good to this point, except for what I think you are stating in saying that matter is out of God’s control, because God does in fact control matter.

As co-existence may "resolve" (this is-delay) the problem (better we say "situation"),we have to deal with the fact, of predating Beings. This is, Gods existing before (our) first Cause (Elohim). While this lessens in no way the Deity of Elohim, it truly makes it complicated to define "First cause". If we had left Elohim alone with us, and not suggested (or TAUGHT) the preexistence of Ruling Entities before Elohim, we might have had a good case. However we are left to deal reasonably with this.

Pretty much everything you said in this statement is true too, except for your idea that there was a time before there was Elohim, or that other beings existed before Him… because Elohim has always been.

While Joseph Smith is said to have claimed this (in discourses-Follett- teachings to leaders-Young/Fielding Smith-scripture "understanding' as Apc.1:6-8"tha Father of God the Father" etc..) we may argue that it is not "doctrine". Yet, it is taught in the Church. Yes, indeed in hymns, manuals, and expressions of Leaders.

Since you seem to have some misunderstandings of our doctrine, please specify what is actually being taught.

Although they <the scriptures> do not hold that God had a beginning or a Father, yet we see (in D&C) it hold th eternity and hence coexistence of matter (and spirits) with God (Elohim).

Please rephrase this statement. It’s too garbled for me to translate it perfectly.

In the Temple, during the endowment, in the video we see(or previous "Salt lake city" live action) we saw, that it taught that Lucifer told Eve how Elohim had to do likewise(eat of the fruit) in order to achieve Godhood. While this is no offensive to us (latter day saints) it is indeed controversial, while dealing with the eternity of the First Cause.

The first cause of what? And btw, please don’t mention anything you have seen in the temple with outsiders again.

In fact, if we draw the logical (not necessarily truthful) line of Cosmology, we find, a chain of Gods backwards in Eternity, that has no end, hence, no possible "First" Cause.

Again, the first cause of what?

As Joseph Smith taught. "as you see this ring", it cannot have a beginning (First Cause-First Creator-First God) as it has no end. For if it had a beginning (First Cause-First Creator-First God) it shall have an end". However logical this may sound to us (as proof of our pre-existence <or premortality>), it is not logical in defining the First cause.

Again, the first cause of what? There is no first cause to God, or Man, because we have always been… although there was a first God and Man on this Earth, and I'm sure you know whose those were.

Alma held that the creation was an observable sign of the existence of a Creator using the existence of matter to sustain it:

Alma 30: 44

But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

The two reasons Alma finds here to defend the "denoted" existence of a Creator(First Cause) are:

1) the matter (the earth and THINGS upon it)

2) the design of things(matter-the movements of planets, orbits, order, etc..)

While our position of the Endless chain of Gods, can actually contain the second claim, it holds not necessarily the first. We attribute to Elohim (our local Cause), a great Order and Design in our universe, including orbits, circles of nature, etc.. But we do not attribute Him the claim (in order to be considered by Alma as the supreme Creator) the first claim, the one consisting of the denoted existence of Him through the existence (or creation) of the elements (the earth and all upon it). We in fact, teach that God "cannot create matter or intelligence", hence, in that respect he is no more of a First Cause to the world, as a carpenter to a wooden box. Yet, the carpenter believes in an even supreme Cause

Again, the first cause of what?

In conclusion, and with this I intend to call upon you all Latter day saints that want to discuss this VITAL issue, how do we then justify, or describe, or define or believe in a First Cause if we in fact, do not(in terms of logic and general deity philosophy)? How do we justify our cherished beliefs in Elohim and yet reconcile it with the hard conception of NO beginning?

Thank you.

Please see my comments above, while seeking further light and truth from God.

Shannon:

Ray, take your wife a bunch of pretty flowers when you go home today. Ask her if you can do anything to help around the house. Offer to cook dinner, or take her out to dinner. Then ask her to bake you a coconut cake, and I bet she would be happy to!

We go out together every Friday night, and I always help around the house. And yes, I know, when I ask her for a cake, she'll bake it very happily because I asked. And my wife is an excellent baker. :)

... but I also want you guys to give me a cake, for my going away present, before parting.

Thanks a lot Ray for agreeing to reason with me. As to your answers:

1)"Okay, one more time, Serg, since I know you won’t be satisfied with what I’ve already told you." -Indeed i was already "pleased" with it, but definitively more pleased with the long one

2) "There never was a first man, because men have always been, just as there never was a first god, because gods have always been. But was there ever a first man on this Earth? Yes, named Adam."

-Here you are accepting our belief in multiple Rulling Entities,(called gods), and we attribute them "eternnity" of existence. But, the point of this antimormon propaganda goes more deeply my friend. First of all let me define the "First cause" as evangelicals and most christians define it, It is the CAUSE of which WE(and ALL) is an EFECT, hence COMES FROM HIM and is not as ETERNAL as Him. If God could not be eternal(and we agree) we could not have been created, cause nothing would have predated us(and ALL).

In terms of our cosmogony, we know that we are spirit children of two Gods, namely Elohim and our Mother(s), although the process of our creation or "organization' as spirits(from eternal matter) came to be, we know that it envolved a Mother and a Father. This is , Two Gods. Furthermore, we know that we as "ego" are not eternal, but as 'escense" as "matter of being", the "intelligence"(btw-NEVER defined) consisted(as we might especulate) of eternal spiritual matter, from which Elohim formed us(just as Adam from de dust but in terms of eternal matter) and in this we share a sort of eternity with God. And it makes a lot of sense since if we are made of God's own nature(or matter) we share that with Him. BUT, just as we "always were" but we see that indeed we were but NOT from eternity with a personality, again, Elohim was from all eternity but not as a personality either, but as us. Joseph Smith taught that Elohim was once a spirit children of His father, just as we are His, and he went to his respective earth, earned salvation, resurected and ascended to be a god(just as WE are promised in the future), Joseph Fielding Smith also made echo of these words while talking of Jesus' role in preexistance and the character of God(Doctrines of Salvation 1), were he said that Jesus was "watching" what his Father made of His mortal life prior to His exaltation. Also, the famous words "As man is God once was, as God is, man may become". We are not dealing with how authentic are thses statements in terms of doctrine, but that they are what has been ALWAYS taught. While we have NO problem with 'eternal progression"(this including Elohim's mortal trial), it nevertheless brings a "gap" in our explanation for a Beginning(i know, iknow, we "dont believe in a beginning"). But its got somehow to hold in face of reason. The antimormon tell us that if then Elohim was as we are, this means that he did not exist 'from all eternity" as we think Him did, but (we saw) that He only existed eternally as WE existed eternally, this is, in form of eternal spiritual matter, but NOT always as "persons" or spirits who think and WILL. If then He dodnt existed as an individual Rulling Being from always, there was a Father to him that "organized" him from spiritaul matter, and taught Him what now he teaches us, and applied the same plan of 'salvation", etc...As we deal with this, we se that if Elohim also had a father and a God, then also such Father and such God(including His Mother-s-)had respective Fathers and Gods, Mothers, etc...There were a lot of Adams, predating Elohims earth trial, a lot of "Saviours"(although this is a very disputed theory among us-i dont buy it), etc...Their claim is, that we do not propose a God who ultimately and First caused everything to happen, but that we have an eternal chain of Gods who have no beginning or end. The problem(for them and for REASON) is that we cannot reasonably distinguish a Being in that chain which is "essential", ok, to make ot clear, if there was NEVER a First God(Cause), in that chain, but there is a God after the other until it never ends, there is NO possibility of us in "eternity" to know all the Gods, as it just 'goes on and on" backwards in Time. Hence as it predates" Him(elohim), He cannot know all the Gods who exist, because if He did, there the Chain stopped, and there would we have a first One, a first Cause. Hence Elohim(as atimormon teach) is not 'all knowing to us".

3)"Heh, the person who wrote these words simply failed to understand “Mormonism”, or perhaps he or she simply didn’t understand that not all things have a beginning."

-No Ray, they undersatnd our point, is just that our point does not make sense to them(lol).

4)"More evidence of the fact that this person is limited in his or her knowledge of God and our nature and religion. And to try to say this simply, nothing is bigger or better than God, whether God is a Father or a Son. "

-yes indeed, very ignorant people.

5)"All good to this point, except for what I think you are stating in saying that matter is out of God’s control, because God does in fact control matter."

-yes, thank you, but what I mean by saying that Elohim has no control over matter is that He does NOT have ULTIMATE control over it, as he did not CREATED it, it PREDATED HIM, he awoke to "individual"(not in terms of matter) existence once, and found Himself surrounded by it, but in terms of creation9as we hold ot) of course He has control over, as he organizes it as he wills.

6)"Pretty much everything you said in this statement is true too, except for your idea that there was a time before there was Elohim, or that other beings existed before Him… because Elohim has always been."

Yes Ray, but I alteady told you HOW we believe that all beings(intelligent ones) are from 'eternity", and that includes the belief that Elohim DID NOT exist as an independent and willing Being always, but existed as we have, as spiritual matter that was later organized by His father and mother.

7)"Since you seem to have some misunderstandings of our doctrine, please specify what is actually being taught."

-in fact, i do not misunderstand OUR doctrine, I am telling you that we teach what we teach, by means of hymns we teach: a Mother in heaven, a plurality of Gods, by means of leaders we have taught: the progression of Elohim, the progression of jesus, the progression of us and our future divinity, by means of Scripture we teach: the eternity of God, the eternity of matter, the eternity of OUR spiritual matter(hence ours) You see? No misunderstandings, just facts.

8)

Although they <the scriptures> do not hold that God had a beginning or a Father, yet we see (in D&C) it hold th eternity and hence coexistence of matter (and spirits) with God (Elohim).

"Please rephrase this statement. It’s too garbled for me to translate it perfectly."

-Although the scriptures do not hold that elohim(God) had a beginning or a father yet we see in D&C that it holds the eternity of MATTER and hence it's coexistance with God(Elohim).

9)

In the Temple, during the endowment, in the video we see(or previous "Salt lake city" live action) we saw, that it taught that Lucifer told Eve how Elohim had to do likewise(eat of the fruit) in order to achieve Godhood. While this is no offensive to us (latter day saints) it is indeed controversial, while dealing with the eternity of the First Cause.

The first cause of what? And btw, please don’t mention anything you have seen in the temple with outsiders again.

A First Causde for everything Ray, put in your mind that christians' Cause is NOT ours. And btw, I only mention that of the Temple to reenforce our teaching of the doctrine of Elohim's progression from mortal to God, because I know that if I only mentioned it you would say that we nowhere near the official doctrines teach that, but here you go with an example. Yes they are sacred things, but they are also preached outside the temple, so no worries with such statement.

10)Again, the first cause of what? There is no first cause to God, or Man, because we have always been… although there was a first God and Man on this Earth, and I'm sure you know whose those were.

-I told you, there was a Cause for Elohim, as Elohim was the cause for us. yes, Elohim was not the MATERIAL cause for us, as our matter is eternal, but he was the Inteligent Cause for it, as he organized us and gave us our "rational' existance. So it happened to Him. And so on with His father, and the father of his father, etc...

Ultimately, we need to evaluate the 'need' for a Cause, and armonize it with their "needless" Creation story, although we fight against ex-nihlo, we must bear the burden to reasonably explain away the gaps in our point of view. Specially the one concerning Elohims knowledge(or ours in the divinity state) and the impossibility of reaching the First god, as they are numberless.

Thanks again Ray.

[Ray]

Heh. Whoo boy!!! Try to be more concise a little bit, would you?

First of all, there never was a beginning for any of us, including our Father or the Fathers of Elohim, because all of us have always existed, and there never will be any more of us… because intelligence cannot be created.

While discussing that point you seemed to go off on a tangent thinking all of us didn’t exist, or at least not as distinct personalities, when in fact we believe that we actually did… because intelligence is in fact what we were and still are, in essence, before we ever came to be where we are.

Or in other words, our individual “intelligence” has always existed in eternity, and we were then what we are right now, although we were not then as “perfect” or as “one” in intelligence and other attributes as those who are perfect like God.

Or in other words, the process of “growing up” involves becoming “one” with ALL intelligence and at that point we’ll then know all there is, and yes it is possible to know all intelligence, and become totally perfect like God... if we contiinue to learn from God throughout eternity.

And yes, when we do that, we will also know every Father and Son, because there is only so much of intelligence in existence, or else God couldn’t have all true knowledge of intelligence, to see all things as they truly are and will be.

And btw, if you didn’t follow all that, keep seeking intelligence through an assurance from God, and if you still don’t get it while you are still here you’ll still have some more time to know God… as long as you accept and do what He tells you... as you try to become perfect like God.

And yes, I also still don't know about everything yet, but I hope to keep learning from God. :)

[Serg]

Heh. Whoo boy!!! Try to be more concise a little bit, would you?

First of all, there never was a beginning for any of us, including our Father or the Fathers of Elohim, because all of us have always existed, and there never will be any more of us… because intelligence cannot be created.

While discussing that point you seemed to go off on a tangent thinking all of us didn’t exist, or at least not as distinct personalities, when in fact we believe that we actually did… because intelligence is in fact what we were and still are, in essence, before we ever came to be where we are.

Or in other words, our individual “intelligence” has always existed in eternity, and we were then what we are right now, although we were not then as “perfect” or as “one” in intelligence and other attributes as those who are perfect like God.

Or in other words, the process of “growing up” involves becoming “one” with ALL intelligence and at that point we’ll then know all there is, and yes it is possible to know all intelligence, and become totally perfect like God... if we contiinue to learn from God throughout eternity.

And yes, when we do that, we will also know every Father and Son, because there is only so much of intelligence in existence, or else God couldn’t have all true knowledge of intelligence, to see all things as they truly are and will be.

And btw, if you didn’t follow all that, keep seeking intelligence through an assurance from God, and if you still don’t get it while you are still here you’ll still have some more time to know God… as long as you accept and do what He tells you... as you try to become perfect like God.

And yes, I also still don't know about everything yet, but I hope to keep learning from God. :)

Indeed Ray.

But you seem to be struggling in something.

1) Intelligence has never been defined by scriptures as to let us KNOW exactly what it is. The scripture that ONLY mentions it calls it also "light of truth". The "Light of Christ" is indeed part of such intelligences(uncreated) but is certanely NOT a person. Joseph Fielding Smith in his works "Answers to gospel questions" in respect of "intelligences" said that we yet know nothing exact about them, the guide for study of scriptures says that it may very well reffer to "the(already) individuals(personalities) Abraham saw in preexistance" OR the "spiritual matter from which we are ALL created or organized" before birth here on earth.

So we have to births, the first in Heaven(which process we dont know-some say is sexual-Mother and father) and our birth here. All, ALL, leaders from the very beginning of the Restoration have preached that we once were "spiritual babies" in the preexistance and by a process became 'grown ups". At the moment of our earthy birth we were already adults, intelligents, and some powerful indeed, and as Orson Pratt taught, the process by which adult spirits are "compressed' into tiny bodies make the work for the "veil" to weaken our memories, etc...

2) The phrase "from eternity to eternity" in describing Elohim's existance, in both leaders words and manuals(!) say that it does not mean that He(or us) existed in a personal way from always, BUT that He went(just as us) from one eternity(preexistance) to mortal life to then again eternal life. So it is more of a process definition rather that of nature of being.

3)In that sense, you have to admit two things:

a)That is rather impossible for us in light of so much doctrine on it, that we were all(gods, angels, demons) existant form eternity as persons, and we just "popped" out of nowhere and began to co-exist. There was a "relative" beginning to each of us, although the escence of which we are made is as eternal as that of God.

b)That if(as so many others say), there is an eternal chain of Rulling Entities, then, when I get there, I will say "hi" to one, then "hi" to Elohim, then "hi" to His Father, then "hi" to His Father's Father, then so on and on, and eternally I would spend my eternity saying hi to people that(as they havce NO creator or "first")will never end to appear before me, in which case, Neithr Elohim nor I will ever get to know them All, for if Elohim or I could get to know personally ALL the gods in the time line, that would include a last one(being he the First) in whic case we would have the True iniciator, the true First Cause, but if we dont, as we teach, is simply out of our knowledge.

No worries, is just reason.

[Ray]

Hi Serg,

No harm done. We’re all still trying to figure out ALL of the details, but there does seem to be a few things that I know that you don’t know, and I hope we’ll both become “one” with our God.

And to share a few more of my thoughts with you, first of all, I'll tell you that I know God knows everything about everything and everybody… and knowing that, I know there must be a limited amount of things and bodies to know, otherwise God could not know everything about everything and everybody... and He would still have some more things to learn.

Or in other words, I know God is not ever going to be surprised by a discovery of some other being, or some other kind of God who really was the “first cause’ of it all, and that would certainly be possible if God didn’t really know everything about everything and everybody… as you seem to be suggesting by the idea that there are some beings God will never know because they are too far back, or too far away, or whatever, for God to ever be able to know them or even meet them.

Secondly, knowing there are a limited number of things and bodies in existence, in some form or another, I also know there is a basic “essence” that every thing and every body possesses, whether it’s a thing or body to be acted upon or a thing or body that acts.

Furthermore, based upon revelation I have received from God, I have also concluded that things that are only acted upon are possessed by only eternal elements, without any form or degree of intelligence, and things that have the ability to actually act are things that are possessed of some form or degree of intelligence, as well as agency, to become what they choose to become….with the power to become better given through the power of God as God helps those who want to progress.

Or in other words, I know that all living beings are composed of intelligence, to one degree or another, and the one being or one type of being that possesses more intelligence than all other beings is the being we now know as God… the ultimate being in all of existence that knows everything about all other beings with any form or degree of intelligence… as well as everything about other things without any form or degree of intelligence, or else God wouldn’t know everything about everything and everybody, and I know God possesses that knowledge.

Anyway, just some food for thought. Let’s keep learning by learning from God, because we still have a long way to go to become like Him, and I know He is willing to help us. :)

[Serg]

Ok, thanks Ray.