Lorenzo Snow Couplet

[The Folk Prophet]

By the way, I think we can fairly safely assume that if there was a first, that our Heaventy Father was not the first, in that we can see by Joseph Smith's teachings that Jesus followed the pattern of the Father, that our Father did live on an earth at some point, and did the same, in some regard or another, as Jesus did in his footsteps. I think this fairly clearly equates to the Father being a son as well.

[Anddenex]

By the way, I think we can fairly safely assume that if there was a first, that our Heaventy Father was not the first, in that we can see by Joseph Smith's teachings that Jesus followed the pattern of the Father, that our Father did live on an earth at some point, and did the same, in some regard or another, as Jesus did in his footsteps. I think this fairly clearly equates to the Father being a son as well.

I would agree, from the basic information provided by Joseph Smith the doctrine points in this direction.

By the way "proto", a word Vort used today, another attempt for me to learn words and to become smart :)

[The Folk Prophet]

I usually use words wrong and out of context for years and years before I finally use them correctly--probably never in many cases.

I still secretly sing in my head, for example, "Should all the cointance be forgot..." That's what I heard as a kid. My brain doesn't want to let go of it. That's a different issue of course. But using made-up words is something I do as well.

[Anddenex]

I usually use words wrong and out of context for years and years before I finally use them correctly--probably never in many cases.

I still secretly sing in my head, for example, "Should all the cointance be forgot..." That's what I heard as a kid. My brain doesn't want to let go of it. That's a different issue of course. But using made-up words is something I do as well.

Yes, me too, when I use words a lot of the time they are out of place, or placed where it appears to make sense to me.

"Cointance" would be considered a mondegreen. Mondegreen comes from a Scottish ballad, specifying a word or phrase which is heard incorrectly and then the person uses the term they heard.

For example, "mondegreen" stems from "laid him on the green." :)

[mikbone]

Can there be a son without a father? No. Can there be a father without a father? Yes. As I ponder this concept, I then ponder the idea that in order for any species to procreate (in its likeness or in its image), a protofather/mother would logically exist?

We can stop the debate right here.

The Egg came first!

Proof:

[The Folk Prophet]

Here's my real problem with the idea of there having been a first. It implies that exaltation is possible without someone to exalt--that the first god came to full exaltation without the assistance of another god. The inference from this would seem to argue contrary to eternal truths that we know to be eternal truths, perhaps even hinting at our own abilities sans-supreme-being to advance.

As much as I can see the theory as reasonably plausible in my science-fiction trained, how-lightsabers-might-possibly-work, sensibilities, the evidence imparted by those wiser than me suggests otherwise.

I've never thought of the eternal existence of gods in terms of the chicken and egg question (in spite of the embarrassing fact that this is obvious). From now on I will argue accordingly. The answer is clearly (anti-fuliginously??):

Neither.

The chicken is as eternal as the egg, and the egg as eternal as the chicken.

[Vort]

We are missing important information, without which the conundrum of "first God" is insoluble.

Some Latter-day Saints have suggested that God is somehow "outside" of time (a common enough idea in Christianity), so our understanding of "before" and "after" are insufficient, thus sidestepping the issue. The problem with such an attempted sidestep is that this is not merely a "before" and "after" problem; this is a problem of causality. If in some far-distant day I gain my exaltation, it will be because the Father and the Son exalt me. And that will be possible because, and only because, they stand in a position to do so. Likewise, they must have been exalted by some being capable of so doing. This is really the exact problem that the ancient Church fathers solved by making up the idea of a "prime mover" (actually, they borrowed it from Aristotle). In the non-LDS Christian mind, this is the implication of God being self-existent and eternal, which is one important reason why non-LDS Christians chafe at our claim that we ourselves are self-existent.

At the risk of sounding very Catholic indeed, I maintain that this is the Catholic equivalent of a "mystery", something we are not in a position to understand. However, in deference to clear LDS teachings, I also suggest that such things are not completely unknowable; however, those who receive such knowledge by revelation are also bound by that same revelation to keep their mouths shut. So if you really want to know the answer, you will have to get it directly from the lips of the Prime Mover himself.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Vort

[mikbone]

God dosent have to live outside of time. We only need to have one exalted personage solve the time travel problem and the Grandfather paradox.

Here we are, so someone must have done it. Maybe it was Vort...

P.S. I really like the Huggins Displacement Theory, but unfortunately it does not take into account the possibility of wormholes so it must of necessity be false.

Edited March 29, 2013 by mikbone

[The Folk Prophet]

All of my time travel theories are based on Star Trek or the Back to the Future movies. Of course Hollywood pretty much informs all of my scientific understanding, which tells you how scientific I really am.

[Justice]

I believe there was not a first. If there was, then there would be an ultimate beginning. I believe this is the way "things" have always been. It certainly raises more questions than answers, but just because I can't understand something doesn't mean it's not true.

It causes others to question terms like "Alpha and Omega" or "First and Last," or that God is without beginning of days or end of years. All things that we would need the mind of God to understand how He meant them.

I believe you have to stick to basic foundational beliefs when you ponder things not revealed. If what you're supposing doesn't fit the basic foundations of our teachings then there must be another possibility.

[bytebear]

It's not any harder to understand than the concept of infinity. There is no beginning and there is no end. It is infinite. Infinity +1 = infinity. Infinity - 1 = infinity. Infinity * Infinity = Infinity. This is why, if we "become gods" there is still only one God. We are the 1. God is the Infinity and even though we "add" to God, God is still God. And whether Our Father in Heaven is the first or the last, it doesn't matter, because there is no first and there is no last (or in Bible speak, God is the First and is the Last). There is only God.

[JeepMoab]

How bout?

Richard Ostling in his TIME Magazine, PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer interview, asked President Hinckley

Question: 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?

Answer: 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.

Drawing Nearer to the Lord

President Gordon B. Hinckley

Nov 1997 Ensign conference issue

“The media have been kind and generous to us. This past year of pioneer celebrations has resulted in very extensive, favorable press coverage. There have been a few things we wish might have been different. I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that’s to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church.”

If I'm not mistaken he also mentioned it in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle some time ago- maybe in 2007 as well. I once had a copy of the article on my computer.

[JeepMoab]

I chocked up that response to pearls before swine. Of course Hinkley was far more polite.

That is an interesting phrase you used- Pearls before swine.

Did you know it was also used in a reply letter written by President Joseph Fielding Smith (in 1963 I believe). A question arose in a discussion of whether or not Jesus was married and had children so a guy wrote to JFS. He was asked the question and JFS replied,

"Yes! But do not preach it! The Lord advised us not to cast pearls before swine!"

I was fortunate to obtain a copy of that signed letter.

[JeepMoab]

If God, Heavenly Father was once a man, then who is Heavenly Father's father, and so on. Is, then, there a multitude of Saviors? We don't know, there isn't much doctrine behind it, and yet there is plenty of doctrine behind it.

That is more the point I was addressing.

This is a really good question! It would seem that since, as BY taught, "there never was a time when there weren't men and Gods" that those men would be the Gods of later men. For example, Wilford Woodruff wrote in his personal Journal (1851 to 1856, pg. 130) that on April 10, 1852, Heber C. Kimball said,

"Some have said that I was vary (sic) presumptuous to say that Brother Brigham was my God & Saviour. Brother Joseph was his God. The one that gave Joseph the keys of the kingdom was his God which was Peter. Jesus Christ was his God & the God and Father of Jesus Christ was Adam."

So doesn't it stand to reason that each man would then become the God (not god) of those who came after, according to the LDS leaders' teachings I mean?

Edited April 15, 2013 by JeepMoab

[JeepMoab]

Our doctrine appears to be pretty clear, logically, that our Father in heaven has a father, however, this doctrine quickly becomes fuliginous as we ask ourselves, Who was the first father/mother? How could we have a father without him having a father and so on. Yet, there had to be a first? I would assume. If our Heavenly Father was first, then he would not have a father.

If this is true (God has a dad) then there are two major questions I have.

1. Isaiah 43:10 say there was no God before God and there will be none after Him. So, which doctrine is true? That also brings up a glaring fact- someone is lying. Follow-up questions would then be- Who is lying the Bible's God or the LDS God? Or, if both are the same God, why is a God who knows everything about everything 'before' he created the first thing now changing? And, doesn't he say he never changes or lies?

And,

2. How is it (even remotely) possible for the LDS chruch to teach that Jesus created "all things" if he had a dad? Where did Jesus' dad live live, where was the air he breathed, food he ate, water he drank? If absolutely nothing existed before Jesus created "all things" then absolutely nothing existed before he created all things- that would include a dad to him and any Gods thought to be out there.

These things can be confusing but are interesting to discusss to see others perspective.

Edited April 15, 2013 by JeepMoab

[Traveler]

If this is true (God has a dad) then there are two major questions I have.

1. Isaiah 43:10 say there was no God before God and there will be none after Him. So, which doctrine is true? That also brings up a glaring fact- someone is lying. Follow-up questions would then be- Who is lying the Bible's God or the LDS God? Or, if both are the same God, why is a God who knows everything about everything 'before' he created the first thing now changing? And, doesn't he say he never changes or lies?

And,

2. How is it (even remotely) possible for the LDS chruch to teach that Jesus created "all things" if he had a dad? Where did Jesus' dad live live, where was the air he breathed, food he ate, water he drank? If absolutely nothing existed before Jesus created "all things" then absolutely nothing existed before he created all things- that would include a dad to him and any Gods thought to be out there.

These things can be confusing but are interesting to discusss to see others perspective.

I think you are making too many assumptions. Consider that Jesus is the example of G-d the Father to all Christians. This means that through Jesus we can best learn of the Father. Jesus is the example to all Christians of G-d the Father.

Now within that context that Jesus is the example of G-d:

As man is - Jesus (the example to man of G-d) once was. And as Jesus is (resurrected, one in every way with the Father and seated at the right hand of the Father); man may become.

If you or anyone can find anything in scripture that proves the above statement concerning Jesus Christ to be false and his mission to mankind -- Please express such in detail - I would be most interested in how a Christian found an exception.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

God dosent have to live outside of time. We only need to have one exalted personage solve the time travel problem and the Grandfather paradox.

Here we are, so someone must have done it. Maybe it was Vort...

P.S. I really like the Huggins Displacement Theory, but unfortunately it does not take into account the possibility of wormholes so it must of necessity be false.

Why can't God incorporate all time as opposed to living outside of it, that would solve the grandfather paradox as there is no alteration of events in another time.

One of God's characteristics shown by Our Savior in this world is that of perfect empathy. One of the features Christ represents is His ability to pay for sins He did not commit. His empathy is so powerful as to comprehend the act that He did not do Him self. I think if we ponder that carefully then we would better understand how it is possible that one man could someday have all that was before him and all that is in the future. We already believe this is a god-like characteristic. Christ redeems our sins by interceding for us as if He is the one that has the debt. He also is able to give glory, glory of acts. God is able to receive glory from acts He did not personally perform. How is this possible? It is possible because that is a God-like characteristic.

We are told to work on that characteristic here and are screened for such a skill by loving others as our self, working on empathy.

Vicarious acts are part of our gospel for a reason. I believe there is something very important in Christ's prayer that we all become "one" with Him as He is "one" with God the Father. An individual that can become "one" with God in the way that Christ asked us to (which can only occur after resurrection) is to be part of all that was before and all that is in the future within what is God's and in that way making it our own, never anything before or after as it is all one. It can't vary as it is all one, it never changes and it incorporates all time. It doesn't have to be outside of time when it incorporates all time.

We haven't been told the details of how this happens. I am curious, though, if the need for a body plays a role in this process. Possibly, the change that takes place into a Celestial body, the Celestial body being one like the sun and all that stands for may be the point of change from finite time to incorporating all time. The only reason to state this is because there really is no need to hunt for some, "living outside of time" theory.

Living "outside of time" would also create the contradiction to the definition we have of God's work surrounding changing things over time, "to bring to pass" ...

[mikbone]

We were having fun during this thread discussing paradoxes and commenting on time-space issues.

I doubt that we will be able to understand how God interacts with time until we enter the Celestial Kingdom and experience how He lives.

[JeepMoab]

I think you are making too many assumptions. Consider that Jesus is the example of G-d the Father to all Christians. This means that through Jesus we can best learn of the Father. Jesus is the example to all Christians of G-d the Father.

Actually, I am only saying what the LDS church said/taught. I'm not adding to, taking away from or assuming anything. And, Jesus isn't "the example of God" to Christians. He is God to Christians. And the Bible says He is God and that there is only one God.

Now within that context that Jesus is the example of G-d:

As man is - Jesus (the example to man of G-d) once was. And as Jesus is (resurrected, one in every way with the Father and seated at the right hand of the Father); man may become.

If you or anyone can find anything in scripture that proves the above statement concerning Jesus Christ to be false and his mission to mankind -- Please express such in detail - I would be most interested in how a Christian found an exception.

The Traveler

I find no Scriptures in the Bible that says Jesus was a man before He was Jesus Christ. Ironically, I do find it in the LDS church which seems a bit strange to me on a couple of fronts. First, that implies the LDS believe in reincarnation. I thought eternal progression ruled the day, not regression (LDS say/teach Jesus is the God of the OT. That means He was already a man once- in order to have become the OT God. Then He went from God down to being a man named Jesus (regression or reincarnation- take your pick but both apply). But I could be reading it wrong. Second, the phrase says Jesus created "all things". There are no strings attached to other planets, people or anything else. And, the word 'all' is inclusive- it means everything past, present and future. So, Jesus literally created all things. Am I reading the LDS text wrong?

[THIRDpersonviewer]

I think you are making too many assumptions. Consider that Jesus is the example of G-d the Father to all Christians. This means that through Jesus we can best learn of the Father. Jesus is the example to all Christians of G-d the Father.

Actually, I am only saying what the LDS church said/taught. I'm not adding to, taking away from or assuming anything. And, Jesus isn't "the example of God" to Christians. He is God to Christians. And the Bible says He is God and that there is only one God.

I find no Scriptures in the Bible that says Jesus was a man before He was Jesus Christ. Ironically, I do find it in the LDS church which seems a bit strange to me on a couple of fronts. First, that implies the LDS believe in reincarnation. I thought eternal progression ruled the day, not regression (LDS say/teach Jesus is the God of the OT. That means He was already a man once- in order to have become the OT God. Then He went from God down to being a man named Jesus (regression or reincarnation- take your pick but both apply). But I could be reading it wrong. Second, the phrase says Jesus created "all things". There are no strings attached to other planets, people or anything else. And, the word 'all' is inclusive- it means everything past, present and future. So, Jesus literally created all things. Am I reading the LDS text wrong?

hi how are you? I think there are some things about our doctrine that misunderstood can lead to confusion. The main thing is who we believe God to be. As you mentioned that God was a man before He became Jesus Christ. I assume that you believe that God and Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Father. Do I understand that belief correct? If so then yes our doctrine would seem very confusing as how can Jesus Christ be a man before He lived here.

We believe that God consists of three seperate personages. The Father. The Father of our spirits and of all things as the creator of them. The Son. This is Jesus Christ who is the Son of the Father on this earth that redeems us and gives us grace. The Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. This is the Spirit that teaches and witnesses of the Father and the Son. The Father and Son have bodies that have flesh and bones like mankind. The Spirit is just a spirit so that it can dwell in us and feel the presence of the others in us.

That is why with the prior post, the idea was mentioned that Christ is the way to the Father(a teaching prevelant in the Bible). It is through Christ that we learn of the Father.

The last point I wanted to make is we do not believe in reincarnation. We will never come back as another form of life whether it is a human, a cat, a rabbit, a snail. We believe we will be resurrected to the bodies that we now have. They will come forth from our graves to have a body forever, and coupled with that will be a happiness and joy that will go on through eternity.

Oh and as pertaining to Jesus Christ as the Jehovah of the Old Testament. In the scripture Abraham 3:27, we are taught that Christ was like unto God.(emphasis added). That suggests that Jehovah or Christ had the same nature or perfection that the Father had before He came into this life. The one thing that He lacked was a resurrected body of flesh and bones, which if Jehovah did possess then He would be exactly like the Father. Jehovah now possesses that body as He is now resurrected. So He is exactly like our Father. There was no regression, just a "condescension." That He came down from that special state and capacity to undergo mortal testing and trial. He fulfilled and passed that test by completing the Atonement and our redemption. Therefore He was resurrected to His current position of gloriously exalted person who possesses all the Father possesses and is perfect.

[Traveler]

I think you are making too many assumptions. Consider that Jesus is the example of G-d the Father to all Christians. This means that through Jesus we can best learn of the Father. Jesus is the example to all Christians of G-d the Father.

Actually, I am only saying what the LDS church said/taught. I'm not adding to, taking away from or assuming anything. And, Jesus isn't "the example of God" to Christians. He is God to Christians. And the Bible says He is God and that there is only one God.

Interesting you say this because Jesus said specifically he is the example - This would be simple if you were a Christian that believed Jesus and what he said above all other scripture.

I find no Scriptures in the Bible that says Jesus was a man before He was Jesus Christ.

Again you are misrepresenting what is said. What was said is that as man is G-d once was - this does not say that Jesus was not the Word or G-d before he came to earth as Jesus Christ. All that I said is that as man is G-d (Jesus) once was - Do you believe Jesus was once a man? or no?

Ironically, I do find it in the LDS church which seems a bit strange to me on a couple of fronts. First, that implies the LDS believe in reincarnation. I thought eternal progression ruled the day, not regression (LDS say/teach Jesus is the God of the OT. That means He was already a man once- in order to have become the OT God. Then He went from God down to being a man named Jesus (regression or reincarnation- take your pick but both apply). But I could be reading it wrong. Second, the phrase says Jesus created "all things". There are no strings attached to other planets, people or anything else. And, the word 'all' is inclusive- it means everything past, present and future. So, Jesus literally created all things. Am I reading the LDS text wrong?

Let me quote specific text from the Bible - that you as a Christian should understand and not dispute. Lets start with John chapter 5. The chapter folds around Jesus healing on the Sabbath and being accused. It is important to understand that the accusers of Jesus intended to put him to death - according to the Law of the Jews (of which Jesus was a Jew).

Verse 19 - Jesus testifies that he does what he only does what he see the Father do. This is in response the the Jews that accused Jesus of being equal to the Father - In the next several verses Jesus testifies to Christians as well as the world that he is in essence the "Servant Son" of the Suzerain according to ancient Suzerain laws of kingdoms.

If you like I can give you several non-LDS Christian and Jewish references to ancient near-East Suzerain Law where an appointed servant speaks as the Suzerain in first person - Including scriptural references to correspond to the Law of the Servant - but that the servant is not the Suzerain but sent by the Suzerain. Jesus clearly falls into this category by his own testimony not only in John Chapter 5 but in other chapters of John as well.

So - as I understand you are saying that Jesus is not the Son but the Father. Which I do not believe nor do I believe that Jesus ever taught any such thing - The only way to come to such a conclusion to to quote scriptures out of context and ignore all other possible variant readings of scripture.

But my point is simple -- Jesus is the Christian example of G-d - if there is something in scripture that disputes this point then lets include it in our discussion but even is you dispute Jesus as the son and believe him to be the father - then so much so what I offer applies. So -- as man is G-d (Jesus) once was and as G-d (Jesus) is man may become. All that I ask if for a scriptural reference that shows anything in that statement this to be false.

The Traveler

[JeepMoab]

I think you are making too many assumptions. Consider that Jesus is the example of G-d the Father to all Christians. This means that through Jesus we can best learn of the Father. Jesus is the example to all Christians of G-d the Father.

Interesting you say this because Jesus said specifically he is the example - This would be simple if you were a Christian that believed Jesus and what he said above all other scripture.

Again you are misrepresenting what is said. What was said is that as man is G-d once was - this does not say that Jesus was not the Word or G-d before he came to earth as Jesus Christ. All that I said is that as man is G-d (Jesus) once was - Do you believe Jesus was once a man? or no?

Let me quote specific text from the Bible - that you as a Christian should understand and not dispute. Lets start with John chapter 5. The chapter folds around Jesus healing on the Sabbath and being accused. It is important to understand that the accusers of Jesus intended to put him to death - according to the Law of the Jews (of which Jesus was a Jew).

Verse 19 - Jesus testifies that he does what he only does what he see the Father do. This is in response the the Jews that accused Jesus of being equal to the Father - In the next several verses Jesus testifies to Christians as well as the world that he is in essence the "Servant Son" of the Suzerain according to ancient Suzerain laws of kingdoms.

If you like I can give you several non-LDS Christian and Jewish references to ancient near-East Suzerain Law where an appointed servant speaks as the Suzerain in first person - Including scriptural references to correspond to the Law of the Servant - but that the servant is not the Suzerain but sent by the Suzerain. Jesus clearly falls into this category by his own testimony not only in John Chapter 5 but in other chapters of John as well.

So - as I understand you are saying that Jesus is not the Son but the Father. Which I do not believe nor do I believe that Jesus ever taught any such thing - The only way to come to such a conclusion to to quote scriptures out of context and ignore all other possible variant readings of scripture.

But my point is simple -- Jesus is the Christian example of G-d - if there is something in scripture that disputes this point then lets include it in our discussion but even is you dispute Jesus as the son and believe him to be the father - then so much so what I offer applies. So -- as man is G-d (Jesus) once was and as G-d (Jesus) is man may become. All that I ask if for a scriptural reference that shows anything in that statement this to be false.

The Traveler

Before we go any further in this discussion, which I find interesting, show me where Jesus said He is the example 'of God' to man from the Bible. Sure, He is the example we are to follow, we are called Christians or Christ like, but Jesus is more than that He is God- see Is. 7:14, Mt. 1:23 and Is. 43:10 says there is only one God- none before and none after. Once you explain these verses then we can move forward from there. Thanks.

[Traveler]

Before we go any further in this discussion, which I find interesting, show me where Jesus said He is the example 'of God' to man from the Bible.

John Chapter 14 - note the statement in verse 6 "I am the way" - a very clear statement that we are to see Jesus as the example. Also note in verse 9 following where Philip asked to see the Father and Jesus responds that seeing him is seeing the Father and Jesus explains why - because the Father is in him and therefore his works are the example of the Father. Therefore Jesus is the example of the Father through his works

Sure, He is the example we are to follow, we are called Christians or Christ like, but Jesus is more than that He is God- see Is. 7:14, Mt. 1:23 and Is. 43:10 says there is only one God- none before and none after. Once you explain these verses then we can move forward from there. Thanks.

Part of the problem is that you are referencing scripture out of context. Isaiah is written in an ancient Hebrew poetic format and in the specific context of 43:10 Isaiah is talking specifically about Pagan images connected to Baal. If you had read the entire chapter 43 of Isaiah and understood the epoch of Baal (the birth, death and resurrection of Baal and how Baal was believed to have redeemed mankind) perhaps you could better understand this scripture. In short Isaiah is saying poetically that the graven images of Baal have nothing at all to do with the redeemer of Israel - not in the past, not in the present and not at any time in the future.

Again this is not just an LDS interpretation. There are a number of scholars (Non-LDS Christian and Jewish) in published commentary concerning the Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scriptures. Not just any old commentary but recognized as the authority by the Dead Sea Scroll Society.

Again you are relying on traditional Medieval interpretations of scripture from the Dark Ages.

Since you are interested (at least pretend to be) in the prophesies of Isaiah - consider Chapter 2 verse 2. Did you know that in the language of the native Ute peoples that their word "utah" means "Top of the mountains". The LDS wanted to name their state Deseret but anti Mormons forced the name Utah the last minute in congress - fulfilling that particular Isaiah scripture as only G-d could have done?

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

2. How is it (even remotely) possible for the LDS chruch to teach that Jesus created "all things" if he had a dad? Where did Jesus' dad live live, where was the air he breathed, food he ate, water he drank? If absolutely nothing existed before Jesus created "all things" then absolutely nothing existed before he created all things- that would include a dad to him and any Gods thought to be out there.

These things can be confusing but are interesting to discusss to see others perspective.

These are excellent questions, and again, since we know very little pertaining to our Father in heaven, these discussions will always fall to the wayside -- speculation -- and cannot be considered doctrine of the LDS Church, at least discussions which pertain to tenets beyond revealed truth.

As testified by our prophet and apostles,The Living Christ, "He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New. Under the direction of His Father, He was the creator of the earth. “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3)."

We believe in God the eternal and in his son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. We recognize, as taught from the bible, that these three are separate personages; as such, we accept that "all things" were made by Jesus Christ "under the direction of his Father."

I have honestly, never read any scripture which specifically can be interpreted as "nothing existed," we are merely informed that all things were created, in LDS theology, we accept created as "organized."

[mikbone]

Am I reading the LDS text wrong?

Yes