Head Of The Gods

[inquiringmind]

I've been thinking about what JS said in the King Follet Sermon about a Son being a Father, and a Father being a Son.

The implication seems to be that there is an infinite regress of Gods.

But then, what did he mean when he said that the head of the Gods appointed a God for us.

If there is an infinite regress of Gods, how could heavenly Father (or even His Father) be "the head of the Gods"?

How could there be any head, when there'd always be a God with more seniority?

[kolipoki09]

I've been thinking about what JS said in the King Follet Sermon about a Son being a Father, and a Father being a Son.

The implication seems to be that there is an infinite regress of Gods.

But then, what did he mean when he said that the head of the Gods appointed a God for us.

If there is an infinite regress of Gods, how could heavenly Father (or even His Father) be "the head of the Gods"?

How could there be any head, when there'd always be a God with more seniority?

If you're interested in what FAIR has to say, I suggest going there. Given the number of threads you've started, I might suggest that you utilize the FAIR Wiki as often as possible. This of course is my own opinion and you're free to do as you wish.

Also, David Bokovoy has published on the issue: http://fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2010-David-Bokovoy.pdf

As has Blake Ostler in his monumental work Exploring Mormon Thought Volume 3: Of God and Gods Greg Kofford Books, Salt Lake City, 2008.

[inquiringmind]

I've read the David Bokovoy article, and I don't recall it addressing the question of how there could be a head of the Gods if there's been an infinite regress of Gods (as seems implied in the King Follet Sermon, and as was explitely taught by Brigham Young when he was first president.)

Since this is a Mormon discussion forum, and there are plenty of active, knowledgible Mormons here, I would like some of your thoughts on this.

How could heavenly Father (or even His Father) be "the head of the Gods," if there are always Gods who have been Gods longer (no matter how far back you go)?

Edited July 2, 2011 by inquiringmind

[CV75]

I've been thinking about what JS said in the King Follet Sermon about a Son being a Father, and a Father being a Son.

The implication seems to be that there is an infinite regress of Gods.

But then, what did he mean when he said that the head of the Gods appointed a God for us.

If there is an infinite regress of Gods, how could heavenly Father (or even His Father) be "the head of the Gods"?

How could there be any head, when there'd always be a God with more seniority?

I think He is a Head in that He is the fountain or progenitor of the gods that He gives rise to, but not for anyone before Him (if He even has a progenitor as far as we are concerned), just like Adam is the head of our race, or a patriarch has "seniority" over those who come after him, but not before him. For all I know, there is a group of gods that function together as one Head.

[mfbukowski]

"Head" could also be a title.

He's our "Head" and the others are irrelevant to us.

[inquiringmind]

"Head" could also be a title.

He's our "Head" and the others are irrelevant to us.

In the relevant quote, the "head of the Gods" appointed our God for us.

If "our God" is heavenly Father, "the head of the Gods" spoken of isn't our head, he appinted our head.

But if there's an infinite regress of Gods, there would seem to be a God above the God who appointed our God, and a God above Him, add infinitum.

My question is, how could there be any "head of the Gods" if that's true???

[TAO]

In the relevant quote, the "head of the Gods" appointed our God for us.

If "our God" is heavenly Father, "the head of the Gods" spoken of isn't our head, he appinted our head.

But if there's an infinite regress of Gods, there would seem to be a God above the God who appointed our God, and a God above Him, add infinitum.

My question is, how could there be any "head of the Gods" if that's true???

He's the head of his posterity... he's not the head of his father though, if you know what I mean. Head of the Gods of his responsibility, of his stewardship (glad I found that word, I had forgotten what it was and had to look for it =D). Stewardship means you are taking care of something for someone else... they give it to you for you to care for. You are the head of your stewardship, but you answer to God on it... and it's sort of like that... he answers to his Father, just as we will answer to him =D.

[Mike Richards]

I think about this like I do about a company--my company has a president. He is the head of our company. My company, however, is owned by another company, which also has a president, who is the head of that larger company. That larger company is, itself, owned by a really big company, which also has a president... etc. It is perfectly reasonable to refer to any of the presidents as "the president of the company" or "the head of the company".

[Storm Rider]

I've been thinking about what JS said in the King Follet Sermon about a Son being a Father, and a Father being a Son.

The implication seems to be that there is an infinite regress of Gods.

But then, what did he mean when he said that the head of the Gods appointed a God for us.

If there is an infinite regress of Gods, how could heavenly Father (or even His Father) be "the head of the Gods"?

How could there be any head, when there'd always be a God with more seniority?

First, let's be clear about this topic. It is a mystery and the LDS Church seldom, if ever, talks about it. The Church is clear that the disciples of Christ should focus their lives on the fundamentals: faith, hope, charity, repentance, baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

IF an individual seeks to know the myteries then well and good for him, BUT he walks a path where the Spirit is the only teacher. Others have addressed topics and shared but little; they can point a direction of inquiry, but the answers will only be found through revelation.

Brigham Young counseled that it was impossible to understand the First Cause; it was beyond us. All we can do is provide opinion; there is no doctrine on this. Is there a "head of the Gods"; yes. The head of the Gods is God the Father and there is no other. The Godhead is made of the three that are one in purpose: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Who are the other gods mentioned? I believe they are each of God's children. The Bible tells us we are gods. It is obvious to me that most all Christians are very uncomfortable with this type of language. Yet, it is found clearly in their teachings. The Catholic Catechism clearly teaches that Jesus became man so that man could become gods.

Infinite regress is not doctrine; it infers that there is an infinite progression of God himself and that is heresy. I caution you that your path in seeking the mysteries is a good path, but it is one where you must walk with the Spirit. We are a poor substitute. Peace.

[mfbukowski]

I think about this like I do about a company--my company has a president. He is the head of our company. My company, however, is owned by another company, which also has a president, who is the head of that larger company. That larger company is, itself, owned by a really big company, which also has a president... etc. It is perfectly reasonable to refer to any of the presidents as "the president of the company" or "the head of the company".

That's about the way I meant it.

Father Adam was the first "Adam", Christ is called the "second Adam", lowly missionaries and even Apostles are called "Elder". We have Deacons presidents (addressed as "President"), Teachers Presidents, Elder's Q Presidents, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, Temple Presidents and the President of the Q of 12, and the church President.

I think we could have a few "Heads" as well!

[CV75]

I think we could have a few "Heads" as well!

...just as I happened to read earlier today: D&C 121:28-32. The way these verses are written, the answer to 28 is probably "both"; so that 29 probably means we join in with the One; so that the answer to verse 30 is probably "no"; so that the dispensation of the fullness of times is what opens us up to eternity (verse 31); so that we probably find out that the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods doesn't need to have a boss-of-the-boss-of-the boss-infinite regress, but they live together in perfect love, harmony and unity, and honor and worship their forebearers (which they understand by that time what it meant to be co-eternal with them) according to the dictates of the conscience of a god.

[mfbukowski]

...just as I happened to read earlier today: D&C 121:28-32. The way these verses are written, the answer to 28 is probably "both"; so that 29 probably means we join in with the One; so that the answer to verse 30 is probably "no"; so that the dispensation of the fullness of times is what opens us up to eternity (verse 31); so that we probably find out that the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods doesn't need to have a boss-of-the-boss-of-the boss-infinite regress, but they live together in perfect love, harmony and unity, and honor and worship their forebearers (which they understand by that time what it meant to be co-eternal with them) according to the dictates of the conscience of a god.

Agreed.

I think this is the nature of the entire idea of the Patriarchal Order- that if and when we can take our place in it, all of mankind will be welded into a "chainmail" of exaltation- each of us being a "link" tied to each other yet separate in each kingdom, all of us being even further perfected as our Father is further perfected through his children.

As on gets older, one finds that even if one's son is a CEO, he is still your son and needs your advice, as you turn to your elders for advice.

This is particularly clear when one thinks of the Godhead itself as a family and all of us as Father's children

The old Monarchical view of God as King of the Universe disappears when we see him as our loving Father. Yet of course he is both, and we are his royal progeny.

[Deborah]

Brigham Young counseled that it was impossible to understand the First Cause; it was beyond us. All we can do is provide opinion; there is no doctrine on this.

I think this is why the church is trying to get people back to the basics. We all like to speculate on some of the deeper doctrine, and certainly a lot of the beloved former prophets did this a bit more publicly, but they weren't under the scrutiny of instantaneous press who like to give soundbites as the full story. However I think our vision is so limited by our mortality that we can't possibly begin to comprehend the greatness of God or the universe.

We are in mortality to get our grammar school education; some are more advanced and study these things and form opinions (not revelation) and sometimes share these. We make the mistake of assuming just because a prophet said it it's doctrine. Keep in mind that Alma himself said in Alma 4:20 when talking about the resurrection "I give it as my opinion". Further revelation has confirmed this but nevertheless at the time Alma didn't know. Likewise Joseph Smith didn't have everything revealed at once but would say "let us reason together" and then use the scriptures to explain his reasoning. He also had a lot more knowledge than he revealed but didn't dare reveal it because of the reaction he got just from the simpler things.

We probably should finish our basic training before trying to comprehend the greatness of God and his dealings. We only get a glimpse of it here and I just think too many people are not ready to accept what God has to offer us, even LDS. One reason I love the church is because it puts no limits on what we can do in eternity if we keep the commandments.

[altersteve]

Again, there is no "infinite regress" of gods in LDS theology. Though many Latter-day Saints believe it, it is not official LDS doctrine. Official doctrine holds that the Head of the Gods, the God of gods, is our Heavenly Father.

Edited July 2, 2011 by altersteve

[HeatherAnn]

Who's the neck? Because the neck can turn the head whichever way.

(ha - from movie - My Big Fat Greek Wedding)

[urroner]

I think this is why the church is trying to get people back to the basics. We all like to speculate on some of the deeper doctrine, and certainly a lot of the beloved former prophets did this a bit more publicly, but they weren't under the scrutiny of instantaneous press who like to give soundbites as the full story. However I think our vision is so limited by our mortality that we can't possibly begin to comprehend the greatness of God or the universe.

Here a great little article about not looking beyond the mark, what the "mark" is, and why it's important to get back to the basics.

Plain and Precious Things Restored, Part 2: Why Margaret Barker Matters

Then there is the Irenaeus quote

The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge; for this reason, that we, too, as long as we are connected with the scheme of things in this world, should leave perfect knowledge, and such questions [as have been mentioned], to God, and should not by any chance, while we seek to investigate the sublime nature of the Father, fall into the danger of starting the question whether there is another God above God.

[Deborah]

Here a great little article about not looking beyond the mark, what the "mark" is, and why it's important to get back to the basics.

Wasn't that what got the Jewish leadership in trouble at the time of Christ in the first place. Rather than living the basic principles of the Law of Moses and remembering what was important they made the law burdensome and so that people focused on the letter rather than understanding the spirit.

By the same token there are those in the church today so much focused on the deeper mysteries and the dead prophets they've lost sight of what's needed now. That is what happened to my nephew and he has apostatized because he feels the current leadership isn't teaching like the older prophets did.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Deborah