The First Man

[Deren]

Jethreuel gave me renewed confidence that there are some LDS here willing to answer questions about what they believe. Therefore, I would like to ask him/them what the late LDS apostle Bruce McConkie meant when he wrote,

"God himself is the First Man and the Father of all men."—Bruce R. McConkie, "The Mortal Messiah," The Messiah Series (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 178-82), 21 on Infobases Gospel Library CD.

I mean, don't Mormons believe that God the Father had a Father, and that the line of gods and Father extends backwards into infinity? So, how could McConkie state that God is the First Man, if there are all these men who precede him?

[Nosnomis]

Jethreuel gave me renewed confidence that there are some LDS here willing to answer questions about what they believe. Therefore, I would like to ask him/them what the late LDS apostle Bruce McConkie meant when he wrote,

"God himself is the First Man and the Father of all men."—Bruce R. McConkie, "The Mortal Messiah," The Messiah Series (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 178-82), 21 on Infobases Gospel Library CD.

I mean, don't Mormons believe that God the Father had a Father, and that the line of gods and Father extends backwards into infinity? So, how could McConkie state that God is the First Man, if there are all these men who precede him?

Before we go on, let me once again remind you that I am only 18 years old, and am not an expert on Gospel Doctrine. I can only give my personal belief.

I do believe that Heavenly Father is a member of the same race as man, though further along pertaining to Eternal Progression.

I believe that the reference is dealing with Earth, and Earth's inhabitants. During the creation, he would have been considered the First Man, as Adam wasn't created until the final part of the creation of Earth. And of course, he is the Father of all men, as all men are spirit sons of God.

Yes, I believe that the line of gods goes back to infinity, but I also believe that since infinity is beyond comprehension of many people (I myself cannot truly comprehend the magnitude of it,) we often choose to focus on the Earth's timeline, and the generation before and after Earth.

I also believe that, even though I do not fully understand many Gospel Doctrines now, I will have a complete and full understanding during the Millenium.

I hope that answers your question. Gratitude would have been able to explain it much better than I could have, and I shall miss him when he leaves.

God be with you till we meet again.

John

[Deren]

Before we go on, let me once again remind you that I am only 18 years old, and am not an expert on Gospel Doctrine. I can only give my personal belief.

Fair enough. But, then again, I'm not looking for an "experts" input, for an expert in my book is a has been under pressure. And since you're only 18, I would hardly think that you're much of a has been at anything yet, and hopefully my question(s) will not call you too much pressure either.:smile:


I do believe that Heavenly Father is a member of the same race as man, though further along pertaining to Eternal Progression.

I believe that the reference is dealing with Earth, and Earth's inhabitants. During the creation, he would have been considered the First Man, as Adam wasn't created until the final part of the creation of Earth. And of course, he is the Father of all men, as all men are spirit sons of God.

Jeth, are you saying that God is an inhabitant of Earth? If not, then once again, how can God be the first man, given all the men that precede him?


Yes, I believe that the line of gods goes back to infinity, but I also believe that since infinity is beyond comprehension of many people (I myself cannot truly comprehend the magnitude of it,) we often choose to focus on the Earth's timeline, and the generation before and after Earth.

Infinity simply means the lack of finiteness. It is not measureable. Yet, if we have this line, which is composed of beings who became gods, then the line cannot be infinite. It would be finite. For each being depends on its predecessor for its existence. And without a first being, there cannot be a second, third, fourth, or one-millioneth. Therefore, the line cannot extend backward into infinity. It can only extend backward to the first being who became a god. And who was that?


I also believe that, even though I do not fully understand many Gospel Doctrines now, I will have a complete and full understanding during the Millenium.

Wel, I'm not necessarily asking you about Gospel Doctrines. I'm inquiring about God, who Joseph Smith said that knowledge of his character was the first principle of the Gospel. Hopefully, if anything, you will at least come to a better understanding of him as we move along in our discussion.


I hope that answers your question. Gratitude would have been able to explain it much better than I could have, and I shall miss him when he leaves.

It's a start, and I thank you. As for gratitude, I never knew him, so I have no comment.


God be with you till we meet again.

John

Thank you.

[betzerg]

Before we go on, let me once again remind you that I am only 18 years old, and am not an expert on Gospel Doctrine. I can only give my personal belief.

I do believe that Heavenly Father is a member of the same race as man, though further along pertaining to Eternal Progression.

I believe that the reference is dealing with Earth, and Earth's inhabitants. During the creation, he would have been considered the First Man, as Adam wasn't created until the final part of the creation of Earth. And of course, he is the Father of all men, as all men are spirit sons of God.

Yes, I believe that the line of gods goes back to infinity, but I also believe that since infinity is beyond comprehension of many people (I myself cannot truly comprehend the magnitude of it,) we often choose to focus on the Earth's timeline, and the generation before and after Earth.

I also believe that, even though I do not fully understand many Gospel Doctrines now, I will have a complete and full understanding during the Millenium.

I hope that answers your question. Gratitude would have been able to explain it much better than I could have, and I shall miss him when he leaves.

God be with you till we meet again.

John

In this post it seems that Mormonism has a great deal in common with wiccan or pagan religion. OR.....they carry the concept of YESHUA as G-d to it's logical conclusion. (One of three G-d's is just as plausable as One of many many G-ds, and has nothing to do with MONOTHESISM....at least they don't try to hide it with trinity mumbo jumbo).

Shalom,

BETZER

[Nosnomis]

Fair enough. But, then again, I'm not looking for an "experts" input, for an expert in my book is a has been under pressure. And since you're only 18, I would hardly think that you're much of a has been at anything yet, and hopefully my question(s) will not call you too much pressure either.:smile:

Thanks.



Jeth, are you saying that God is an inhabitant of Earth? If not, then once again, how can God be the first man, given all the men that precede him?

I believe that Heavenly Father is the first man pertaining to the History of our planet Earth. Yes, I personally believe that there are those that precede him, but I believe that they are not noteworthy, as they are not involved with Earth or it's history.




Infinity simply means the lack of finiteness. It is not measureable. Yet, if we have this line, which is composed of beings who became gods, then the line cannot be infinite. It would be finite. For each being depends on its predecessor for its existence. And without a first being, there cannot be a second, third, fourth, or one-millioneth. Therefore, the line cannot extend backward into infinity. It can only extend backward to the first being who became a god. And who was that?

In math, when you look at a line, it is infinite. No matter how far you travel along an edge, you never reach the end of a line, unlike a ray, which has a beginning, or a segment, which has a beginning and ending. Another way to look at infinity/eternity, is to look at a plain ring or circle, that doesn't have any adornments. Where does the ring or circle begin? Where does it end? It is just one repeating cycle. I believe that often, people (including me) are unable to comprehend that there are things that do not have a beginning or ending, and feel the need to try to explain a possible beginning. I believe that it is for this reason, many people (including me) prefer to not focus on eternity/infinity.



Wel, I'm not necessarily asking you about Gospel Doctrines. I'm inquiring about God, who Joseph Smith said that knowledge of his character was the first principle of the Gospel. Hopefully, if anything, you will at least come to a better understanding of him as we move along in our discussion.


I hope so too.



Thank you.

You're welcome.

[Nosnomis]

In this post it seems that Mormonism has a great deal in common with wiccan or pagan religion. OR.....they carry the concept of YESHUA as G-d to it's logical conclusion. (One of three G-d's is just as plausable as One of many many G-ds, and has nothing to do with MONOTHESISM....at least they don't try to hide it with trinity mumbo jumbo).

Shalom,

BETZER

Please note in my signature where it says that everything I say is my own personal belief and not to be taken as Official Church Doctrine. I may be wrong on this, I do not have a complete knowledge of the Gospel as yet, so please don't quote me like I am an expert.

Thank you, and God be with you.

[PaulT]

Bet,
Okey, Dokey,

OR.....they carry the concept of YESHUA as G-d to it's logical conclusion. (One of three G-d's is just as plausable as One of many many G-ds, and has nothing to do with MONOTHESISM....at least they don't try to hide it with trinity mumbo jumbo).
Shalom,
BETZER

I guess we know where you stand on the Divinity of Christ.

Paul

[betzerg]

Please note in my signature where it says that everything I say is my own personal belief and not to be taken as Official Church Doctrine. I may be wrong on this, I do not have a complete knowledge of the Gospel as yet, so please don't quote me like I am an expert.

Thank you, and God be with you.

I'm not just looking at your post to make this statement. I went to temple for about 6 months just to study Mormonism. What you are saying is what most Mormons believe. The evolution of G-d, procreation in heaven (when Yeshua states that man neither marries nor is given in marriage in heaven...but are LIKE THE ANGELS). The god and goddess. In fact, it was very strange to be at a mormons' birthday party and hear my friend say "thank god and goddess for friends"..or something to that effect.

YEa...Mormonism is NOT a monthesitic faith...as much as they would like to fit in with mainline christian acceptance...it's a pretty long stretch.

But Mormons are very good people...people of integrity and character..and I appreciate that.

Shalom,

BETZER

[betzerg]

Bet,
Okey, Dokey,


I guess we know where you stand on the Divinity of Christ.

Paul

by one statment you know my position on Messiah. I believe he was co-creator with G-d, the first creation of HaShem in time and space...but he is NOT G-d, in the FULL sense of being YHVH...and not co-equal with Him. YEshua said "I only speak and do the things I hear my father do"...He never tried to be worshipped as a G-d...that idea came later when paganized believers wanted a man-god like the roman gods.

shalom,

BETZER

[Alexander's Mom]

by one statment you know my position on Messiah. I believe he was co-creator with G-d, the first creation of HaShem in time and space...but he is NOT G-d, in the FULL sense of being YHVH...and not co-equal with Him. YEshua said "I only speak and do the things I hear my father do"...He never tried to be worshipped as a G-d...that idea came later when paganized believers wanted a man-god like the roman gods.

shalom,

BETZER

~Or, maybe that idea came after Christ was immortalized? I wouldn't want anyone to try to worship me, either; if I was still a man and hadn't yet regained exaltation.

~To Deren,
Journal of Discourses: Vol.3 p. 319; Vol.4 p. 1 & (with the "Heavenly Grandfather" reference-) p.260; Vol.5 p. 331-2; Vol.6 p. 275; Vol.7 p. 285; Vol.8 p. 244

~To Jeth,
Jeth, ya' really need to look into the JoD, friend. It would clear up alot of those mental fuzzies ya' got pertaining to doctrine. In any case, I got the BoM tellin' me that there are all these intelligences and God is "more intelligent than they all." Then, I got some prophets & apostles tellin' me that God has a Father. Hey, if God has a Father, shouldn't we worship Him? Considering the whole "Honour thy mother and thy father" thing/commandment. Ya' ever heard of cognitive dissonance, Jeth?

[betzerg]

~Or, maybe that idea came after Christ was immortalized? I wouldn't want anyone to try to worship me, either; if I was still a man and hadn't yet regained exaltation.

~To Deren,
Journal of Discourses: Vol.3 p. 319; Vol.4 p. 1 & (with the "Heavenly Grandfather" reference-) p.260; Vol.5 p. 331-2; Vol.6 p. 275; Vol.7 p. 285; Vol.8 p. 244

~To Jeth,
Jeth, ya' really need to look into the JoD, friend. It would clear up alot of those mental fuzzies ya' got pertaining to doctrine. In any case, I got the BoM tellin' me that there are all these intelligences and God is "more intelligent than they all." Then, I got some prophets & apostles tellin' me that God has a Father. Hey, if God has a Father, shouldn't we worship Him? Considering the whole "Honour thy mother and thy father" thing/commandment. Ya' ever heard of cognitive dissonance, Jeth?

If G-d had a father...and HIs father had a father, and HIS father had a father....maybe one of them was Zeus. Maybe one of them was Mathras (sp?) maybe one of them was Apollo. And thus we have paganism.

When G-d states "before me was NO G-D FORMED...neither will there be AFTER ME".

Shalom,

BETZER

[PaulT]

Bert,

Forgive me but…


by one statment you know my position on Messiah.

Yes, your one statement confirmed you denied Christ is fully God, as illustrated by the balance of your statement.


by I believe he was co-creator with G-d, the first creation of HaShem in time and space...but he is NOT G-d, in the FULL sense of being YHVH...and not co-equal with Him. YEshua said "I only speak and do the things I hear my father do"...He never tried to be worshipped as a G-d...that idea came later when paganized believers wanted a man-god like the roman gods.BETZER

Hm, I wonder why He didn’t correct Thomas, “My Lord My God” John 20:28, seems Thomas must have been one of those paganized believers, eh?

Paul

[Deren]

I believe that Heavenly Father is the first man pertaining to the History of our planet Earth. Yes, I personally believe that there are those that precede him, but I believe that they are not noteworthy, as they are not involved with Earth or it's history.

Okay. So what do you do with 1 Corinthians 15:45, which says, "So also it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit"? Is not the author telling us that Adam was the first man, and not "Heavenly Father?"


In math, when you look at a line, it is infinite. No matter how far you travel along an edge, you never reach the end of a line, unlike a ray, which has a beginning, or a segment, which has a beginning and ending. Another way to look at infinity/eternity, is to look at a plain ring or circle, that doesn't have any adornments. Where does the ring or circle begin? Where does it end? It is just one repeating cycle. I believe that often, people (including me) are unable to comprehend that there are things that do not have a beginning or ending, and feel the need to try to explain a possible beginning. I believe that it is for this reason, many people (including me) prefer to not focus on eternity/infinity.

Here's the problem I have with your explanation and analogy, and maybe it's partially due to defining terms. While it is correct to state that a line is infinite, when talking about the "line" of gods that extends backward in Mormon theology, we're actually talking about a ray, which is not infinite. Each point represents a finite person on the "line" which, according to Mormon authors, are relative to one another. Since that is the case, then the "line" is only as infinite as the number of finite points on it. And since there is a contradiction in terms to say that something is infinitely finite, or finitely infinite, then to say that a finite "line" of gods can extend backward into infinity is equally contradictory, if not irrational.

As for the circular explanation and infinity, once again, that will not fly either for the same reason. For example, a clock with hands on it has 60 finite moments, usually imprinted on it, whereby the big hand visits each moment with each passing hour. Nevertheless, even though each minutes is visited every hour by the big hand, the finite value of each minute is not the same as the preceding hour. In other words, the finite moments on a clock are not more cyclical than would be a line of gods, in a circle, and someone were to go around shake each of their hands. Time is linear and so is this line of gods that supposedly comprise the ancestry of the Mormon hierarchy. Otherwise, one would have to concede that there are only a limited number of gods in Mormonism (which I've never heard a Mormon author concede to yet—instead, it's just opposite, that the gods are innumerable), and that with each successive round, one would come to the first god. So, while I appreciate your attempt to explain how it is possible for finite "line" of gods to extend backward into infinity, I'm afraid that there are too many problems with your explanation for it to be plausible.

[Nosnomis]

Okay. So what do you do with 1 Corinthians 15:45, which says, "So also it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit"? Is not the author telling us that Adam was the first man, and not "Heavenly Father?"



Here's the problem I have with your explanation and analogy, and maybe it's partially due to defining terms. While it is correct to state that a line is infinite, when talking about the "line" of gods that extends backward in Mormon theology, we're actually talking about a ray, which is not infinite. Each point represents a finite person on the "line" which, according to Mormon authors, are relative to one another. Since that is the case, then the "line" is only as infinite as the number of finite points on it. And since there is a contradiction in terms to say that something is infinitely finite, or finitely infinite, then to say that a finite "line" of gods can extend backward into infinity is equally contradictory, if not irrational.

As for the circular explanation and infinity, once again, that will not fly either for the same reason. For example, a clock with hands on it has 60 finite moments, usually imprinted on it, whereby the big hand visits each moment with each passing hour. Nevertheless, even though each minutes is visited every hour by the big hand, the finite value of each minute is not the same as the preceding hour. In other words, the finite moments on a clock are not more cyclical than would be a line of gods, in a circle, and someone were to go around shake each of their hands. Time is linear and so is this line of gods that supposedly comprise the ancestry of the Mormon hierarchy. Otherwise, one would have to concede that there are only a limited number of gods in Mormonism (which I've never heard a Mormon author concede to yet—instead, it's just opposite, that the gods are innumerable), and that with each successive round, one would come to the first god. So, while I appreciate your attempt to explain how it is possible for finite "line" of gods to extend backward into infinity, I'm afraid that there are too many problems with your explanation for it to be plausible.


I am back.

I believe that that wonderful scripture you gave was referring to a comparison between Adam, who fell and became mortal, and Christ, who went through the Atonement and overcame death for all of us. Pertaining to the belief that Adam was the first man, I believe that as it states two verses later that he was the first man of the Earth, meaning he was the first man formed out of the elements of our planet Earth, the First mortal man on the Earth. I believe that Heavenly Father would have classified as the first Man to play a part in Earth's history, but Adam was the First man to live on the Earth. Does that help clarify things?

When you look at a line, you are right. Each point is a finite point, but still the line goes on for an Eternity. It would not be possible to count all the points in a line. Gratitude mentioned earlier that finite plus infinity equals infinity, which I believe is another way of saying that finite properties do not affect anything that is infinite. Yes, if we look backward in time, Eternal Progression does seem to be a Ray, as it would go on forever into the past. However, I believe it is a line, as each moment, the point we begin looking back moves forward.
<------------------(Now)
<-------------------------------------------(Now)
Where does now keep moving to?
When we look at it as though it is a line,
<------------------(Now)------------------------------------------------>
<-------------------------------------------(Now)----------------------->
it begins to make more sense. We are following a path that will go on forever.

The line is infinite with finite points, only because we don't want to count each point in the finite line, we usually select a point to stop looking, making a reference that it would continue going on forever. Just like a neverending decimal. 3.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333... Because we don't want to use up every paper in the world to try to put down an answer that will never end, we are content to put down: __
3.33
The __ tells us that the answer will go on for infinity, and we will only count two points in the decimal for the answer.

You made the statement about lining the gods up in a circle and shaking their hands. This would not be possible, as you cannot put infinity points into a circle. The circle would keep growing and never stop growing to be able to see all the points. If you were to try to shake each god's hand in a circle, you would never stop shaking hands for an eternity, and all the while, there will be more gods added to the point where you began.

When I was referring to circles, I was referring to a process that keeps happening over and over again, like plants taking nutrients out of the soil, insects eating the plants, birds eating insects, birds dying, decomposing and putting more nutrients into the soil, and plants taking nutrients out of the soil again. The process keeps repeating itself, so we only repeat the first step to let others know that the process keeps repeating itself. Apply that to Eternal Progression:
A god make spirit children out of intelligences,
A god then makes planet and gives spirit children physical bodies,
A god leads his children along the path so that they become gods themselves,
Each god repeats the process starting with step one.

I hope this clarifies what I believe to you. May God be with you, Deren.
-John

[Deren]

I believe that that wonderful scripture you gave was referring to a comparison between Adam, who fell and became mortal, and Christ, who went through the Atonement and overcame death for all of us. Pertaining to the belief that Adam was the first man, I believe that as it states two verses later that he was the first man of the Earth, meaning he was the first man formed out of the elements of our planet Earth, the First mortal man on the Earth. I believe that Heavenly Father would have classified as the first Man to play a part in Earth's history, but Adam was the First man to live on the Earth. Does that help clarify things?

Interesting twist, but then I need to ask what you do with verses which say that God is not a man at all?

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?


When you look at a line, you are right. Each point is a finite point, but still the line goes on for an Eternity. It would not be possible to count all the points in a line. Gratitude mentioned earlier that finite plus infinity equals infinity, which I believe is another way of saying that finite properties do not affect anything that is infinite. Yes, if we look backward in time, Eternal Progression does seem to be a Ray, as it would go on forever into the past. However, I believe it is a line, as each moment, the point we begin looking back moves forward.

No, no, no. You can't say that a line is a ray, nor that a ray is a line. That was part of the confusion before. When we're talking about this ray of Gods that Mormonism says extends backwards infinitely, then we know immediately that a contradiction has been introduced. Rays don't extend backward any farther than the points which constitute it. So, lets don't confuse our terms by saying that a line exists where only a ray does.


<------------------(Now)
<-------------------------------------------(Now)
Where does now keep moving to?
When we look at it as though it is a line,
<------------------(Now)------------------------------------------------>
<-------------------------------------------(Now)----------------------->
it begins to make more sense. We are following a path that will go on forever.

The line is infinite with finite points, only because we don't want to count each point in the finite line, we usually select a point to stop looking, making a reference that it would continue going on forever. Just like a neverending decimal. 3.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333... Because we don't want to use up every paper in the world to try to put down an answer that will never end, we are content to put down: __
3.33

Again, the problem I see with your explanation is that if one is to have each of these successive points exist, then the preceding point must exist first. In other words, for your number to exist above, each #3 must exist in its order, otherwise the succeeding #3 cannot exist. The ray stops where the last finite point ends. Furthermore, your example above has a starting point. Without the starting point, the rest of your ray cannot exist either. Therefore, when applied to the Mormon succession of gods, as stated before, without a first finite point, there cannot be all these other points (gods) that exist either. Put more simply, a ray made up of finite points cannot extend either forward or backward infinitely. It's a contradiction in terms.


The __ tells us that the answer will go on for infinity, and we will only count two points in the decimal for the answer.

That may be true for a line, but it is not true for a ray.


You made the statement about lining the gods up in a circle and shaking their hands. This would not be possible, as you cannot put infinity points into a circle. The circle would keep growing and never stop growing to be able to see all the points. If you were to try to shake each god's hand in a circle, you would never stop shaking hands for an eternity, and all the while, there will be more gods added to the point where you began.

But, you were the one wanting to use the circle as an example to illustrate what you meant by the never-ending succession of gods, not me. In fact, I rebutted the idea saying that the succession could not be circular, but because of the different points on the ray, the succession would have to be linear, as in a clock with hands.


When I was referring to circles, I was referring to a process that keeps happening over and over again, like plants taking nutrients out of the soil, insects eating the plants, birds eating insects, birds dying, decomposing and putting more nutrients into the soil, and plants taking nutrients out of the soil again. The process keeps repeating itself, so we only repeat the first step to let others know that the process keeps repeating itself. Apply that to Eternal Progression:
A god make spirit children out of intelligences,
A god then makes planet and gives spirit children physical bodies,
A god leads his children along the path so that they become gods themselves,
Each god repeats the process starting with step one.

Again, such an illustration is flawed, given that regardless of the apparent repetitive cycles that take place, each cycle is distinct, or another point on the linear ray. Therefore, even though we might have 12 PM every 24 hours, the first 12 PM is going to be different than the next 12 PM simply because in between the two time periods there are, depending on how you're wanting calculate it, a finite number of moments in between them. In other words, 9:50 AM on September 11, 2005 is going to be different than 9:50 AM on September 11, 2001, when the World Trade Centers were attacked. And worse yet, if one does have a first 12 PM, then none of the successive 12 PMs can take place. So, once again, this infinite ray ("line") of gods cannot exist given the conditions by which Mormons have defined it. One has each of these finite gods related to one another, yet there is no first finite god to kick it all off, and that just doesn't make sense.


I hope this clarifies what I believe to you. May God be with you, Deren.
-John

It helps, but do you understand what I'm trying to say?

[Alexander's Mom]

~My biggest problem with this Mormon idea of god-dom is that it just repeats our physical situation, only it takes place in heaven. It's not all that creative or transcendant. It's like telling someone that the meaning of life is to live it so that your children can live it. There is no higher purpose. It's totally weak as a theology.

Sorry, just my opinion. Too much Aristotle, made me believe in higher purposes and stuff like happiness being that at which all things aim. He made me believe in divine ways being different than human ways, because they're different in kind. Ya' know, stuff like how Adam can't have been the first human made of the dust of this earth because Brigham Young states in the JoD that HE WAS NOT. Nah, jumbly head, that was from somethin' else...tired...sorry...

[Krusader]

by one statment you know my position on Messiah. I believe he was co-creator with G-d, the first creation of HaShem in time and space...but he is NOT G-d, in the FULL sense of being YHVH...and not co-equal with Him. YEshua said "I only speak and do the things I hear my father do"...He never tried to be worshipped as a G-d...that idea came later when paganized believers wanted a man-god like the roman gods.

shalom,

BETZER

So, basically you're an Arian with an Hebraic flair. John the Apostle was not a pagan, but a Jew, and he was the one that wrote John 1:1, which clearly teaches that the Word (Jesus) was God.