Intelligences Organized

[CV75]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ah yes, you are right- my mistake.  I read this too fast:

I interpreted the "this" to mean that you  saying that SSM requires that the creation of spirits in the next world to be similar to creation of human bodies, here.  I hooked the "this" to the wrong horse.  Apologies.  If there is ambiguity, I will find it, sometimes to my detriment.   I drive my poor wife crazy demanding "complete sentences" without "this" or "that" or "he" or "she" in cases where there are multiple thises and thats and hes and shes, because these words can mean anything remotely around what the discussion is about.  "Ah! so it was SALLY who told WAYNE.... yada yada"  

But MY point earlier was ultimately that SSM was wrong in ARGUING AGAINST those who think that bodies are created in both worlds the same way, because that argument is a red herring.

The fact that we don't know how celestial reproduction works means that there could be a zillion ways it happens, all of which are impossible to comprehend.  Yes theoretically asexual reproduction is one of the zillions of possibilities so technically that SSM argument works in a very narrow field of arguments against SSM becoming gospel doctrine

What I see is a key to all this is the Hebrew word "yada"- (no jokes about "yada yada"- now ) which speaks of intimate relationships as "KNOWING" one another and what it means to "know" a wife.  There are contexts here that clearly have nothing to do with sex:

From Strong's:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3045&t=KJV

And there's a lot more as well there- "to understand" and even to "know the Lord"- but it always seems to refer to knowing a person, including to "know I am the Lord your God".

So regardless how you look at it there are SO MANY ways of looking at this and "knowing" it, that it becomes pointless to even speculate and clearly for me at least, the whole argument about celestial reproduction- either way-  being based on the earthly, goes nowhere.

As I said, I think it is about "knowing" intimately the other half of humanity, and knowing the "other", not looking in a mirror of myself.

I know myself and what my physical and emotional needs are, I know how to serve myself and what I like.  What I lack is knowledge of the other half of humanity.  THAT is what I need to learn and love ALL of God's children.

I submit that homosexuality leaves out half of humanity to our intimate "knowledge"- in all senses, and THAT is what makes it wrong, and not celestial precisely because one's "knowledge" misses half of humanity

The other arguments just don't work for me.

I think that is what the scripture alludes to: “When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves. And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.”

I would say that “sociality” is an essential, eternal characteristic driving the organization of intelligences, spirits, people, gods, etc.

Our sociality (our companionable nature and tendency), expressed when we are drawn to the Father, assemble into pairs, families, communities, the Church of the Firstborn and other social units will continue, coupled with eternal glory and without the corrupted relationships (i.e. “covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise”) we see here in this world.

Some associations and acts simply are not entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise because they do not entail the continuation of the seeds / organization of intelligence – however that is manifest or accomplished in eh various spheres and estates of progression -- as described in D&C 132. As you say, there is no sociality in ignoring the other half.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Ahab said:

I was talking about our "kind" of intelligence, or if the word intelligence is causing you problems think about what it is that makes any kind of being a particular kind of "sentient" being.  

And yes our kind of intelligence did reside in our parents before they conceived us as their children, otherwise we would not be the same kind of sentient being that they are.  

We are simply a reproduction of our parents.  What they are we are, speaking in terms of the kind of being we are.

Our spirit is the spirit or same kind of spirit as is the spirit of God our Father, and his parents too, going back into eternity. 

There was never a first one of us, in the general sense, and yet each one of us requires parents to reproduce themselves as individual spirit entities.  With our spirits being the embodiments of the essence of us, including our kind of intelligence which each of us develops however much we choose to develop it.

Yeah, I don't think that really follows. 

[Gray]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I submit that homosexuality leaves out half of humanity to our intimate "knowledge"- in all senses, and THAT is what makes it wrong, and not celestial precisely because one's "knowledge" misses half of humanity

The other arguments just don't work for me.

I'm not sure I get that reasoning. You can't force a relationship that just isn't possible. But this reasoning could be better applied to the ban on women in priesthood roles, as an argument against it. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The infinity of the universe (or multiverse) has nothing to do with whether there is a creator (or intelligent designer).  Those are completely separate issues.

Yes it does. It doesn't disprove the existence of a Creator, it simply makes him unnecessary. 

 

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Yeah, I don't think that really follows. 

You can choose to not think it follows as long as you want but it's obvious that it really does work that way.  Like begets like and voila!  2 have then created another individual of the same kind!  And the one begetted came from the 2 that beget it.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Yes it does. It doesn't disprove the existence of a Creator, it simply makes him unnecessary. 

Or as I would say, it proves an infinite chain of creators. 

The notion that there is only one creator is a false notion.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

You can't force a relationship that just isn't possible.

Of course you can't force a relationship because they are all operate on agency. But all relationships are possible; it's just that not all are eternal.

[TheSkepticChristian]

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Or as I would say, it proves an infinite chain of creators. 

It's true that an infinite universe will have an infinite number of creators, but it will also have an infinite number of worlds that were not created by someone. Like I said, it is not necessary to assume that our world was created by someone. 

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The notion that there is only one creator is a false notion.

but did you know that "an infinite chain of creators" is NOT LDS doctrine? CFR if you disagree 

Infinite chains create a lot of paradoxes. 

Edited June 9, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 

but did you know that "an infinite chain of creators" is NOT LDS doctrine? CFR if you disagree 

Abraham 4:1

And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

 

Perhaps not an "infinite chain," but LDS doctrine is that the world was created by more than one "creator."

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

It's true that an infinite universe will have an infinite number of creators, but it will also have an infinite number of worlds that were not created by someone. Like I said, it is not necessary to assume that our world was created by someone. 

but did you know that "an infinite chain of creators" is NOT LDS doctrine? CFR if you disagree 

Infinite chains create a lot of paradoxes. 

LDS doctrine does include the teaching that there is an infinite number of creators/parents going both backwards and forward in eternity and if you think that isn't included in LDS doctrine then you're simply not aware of the fact that this idea is included in LDS doctrine. 

And FYI, an uncreated world is referred to as matter unorganized, which is what God often uses to create worlds.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think that is what the scripture alludes to: “When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves. And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.”

 

I would say that “sociality” is an essential, eternal characteristic driving the organization of intelligences, spirits, people, gods, etc.

 

Our sociality (our companionable nature and tendency), expressed when we are drawn to the Father, assemble into pairs, families, communities, the Church of the Firstborn and other social units will continue, coupled with eternal glory and without the corrupted relationships (i.e. “covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise”) we see here in this world.

 

Some associations and acts simply are not entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise because they do not entail the continuation of the seeds / organization of intelligence – however that is manifest or accomplished in eh various spheres and estates of progression -- as described in D&C 132. As you say, there is no sociality in ignoring the other half.

 

This is an excellent point- thanks for that.

You know the church has revelations, and is not in the theology business, and it is up to thinking Mormons to develop and interpret ideas to make these revelations fit into our personal views of God and how all this works together.  That is one of the strongest points of Mormonism- that we are not constrained by doctrine but essentially by the recommend interview- orthopraxis over orthodoxy.

The problem is that right now most Mormon theorists who come up with this stuff are actually somewhat opposed to the church position and advocate SSM, and are thinking up ways to justify it.

I think there needs to be an intellectual understanding - not just testimony based, although that is of course sufficient on its own- but an intellectual understanding framing the theological reasons that SSM should not be adopted by the church.

Someone has to do it and I don't see anybody else defending the church position intellectually, except with Bible quotes on sodomy.  Sorry - that may be correct, but it is an approach that obviously does not persuade people in today's society- such views are SEEN to go along with anti-evolution, and the sun rotating around the earth which is flat.

So I think some more contemporary approaches which link to LDS beliefs are essential- and this is one of them, imo.

The social argument is a good direction I think- I also think in terms of what moral arrangements have worked for society.  Kant brings up the categorical imperative which is similar to the golden rule, but one of his other points is that moral positions should be though of in terms of what rules should be able to be generalized to all humanity.

So one should be able to take one's behavior in everything one does and weigh that as if it were a rule which if all humanity obeyed, humanity would somehow be better off for doing so.

So - crossing the street against the light- if all humanity crossed the street against the light- a lot of people would be killed.  Not good for humanity, therefore as a rule to be applied to all humanity it doesn't work.

On the other hand of all humanity observed the rule "thou shalt not cross against the light" many would be saved from being killed in traffic, therefore that is a good rule for society.

It's kind of like what your mom told you- "Because Johnny jumps off a cliff should YOU jump off a cliff??"

So in the case of SSM, they have a case legally and morally, in my opinion, to have the liberty to do what they want.  I have no problem with that as a libertarian.

On the other hand, as a NATURAL MORAL belief, I cannot justify SSM, because if everyone in humanity practiced SSM, humanity could not reproduce and therefore that is obviously bad for humanity.

Just as gay people should be free to practice what they think is right, I cannot accept that for myself morally, and they should not be free to impose their morality on me, just as I do not impose my morality on them.

Therefore I am a member of an organization and social structure - a community- of people opposed to SSM morally.As you say, our "sociality" --"

Quote

I think that is what the scripture alludes to: “When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves. And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.”

 

I would say that “sociality” is an essential, eternal characteristic driving the organization of intelligences, spirits, people, gods, etc.

Our sociality (our companionable nature and tendency), expressed when we are drawn to the Father, assemble into pairs, families, communities, the Church of the Firstborn and other social units will continue, coupled with eternal glory...

 

-- hits it right on the head.

That same sociality will exist in the eternities, with gender differences as an "eternal characteristic" as mentioned in the Proclamation along with opposition in all things, and including ALL of humanity- not just the half that looks like us.

I am in favor of diversity.  We must not just choose to be with people who look like US.  That is narcissism.

Yep- I like that idea a lot!

Edited June 9, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course you can't force a relationship because they are all operate on agency. But all relationships are possible; it's just that not all are eternal.

A couple with mixed sexual orientations can certainly go through the motions, but in most cases a successful marriage relationship isn't possible. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

This is an excellent point- thanks for that.

You know the church has revelations, and is not in the theology business, and it is up to thinking Mormons to develop and interpret ideas to make these revelations fit into our personal views of God and how all this works together.  That is one of the strongest points of Mormonism- that we are not constrained by doctrine but essentially by the recommend interview- orthopraxis over orthodoxy.

The problem is that right now most Mormon theorists who come up with this stuff are actually somewhat opposed to the church position and advocate SSM, and are thinking up ways to justify it.

I think there needs to be an intellectual understanding - not just testimony based, although that is of course sufficient on its own- but an intellectual understanding framing the theological reasons that SSM should not be adopted by the church.

Someone has to do it and I don't see anybody else defending the church position intellectually, except with Bible quotes on sodomy.  Sorry - that may be correct, but it is an approach that obviously does not persuade people in today's society- such views are SEEN to go along with anti-evolution, and the sun rotating around the earth which is flat.

So I think some more contemporary approaches which link to LDS beliefs are essential- and this is one of them, imo.

The social argument is a good direction I think- I also think in terms of what moral arrangements have worked for society.  Kant brings up the categorical imperative which is similar to the golden rule, but one of his other points is that moral positions should be though of in terms of what rules should be able to be generalized to all humanity.

So one should be able to take one's behavior in everything one does and weigh that as if it were a rule which if all humanity obeyed, humanity would somehow be better off for doing so.

So - crossing the street against the light- if all humanity crossed the street against the light- a lot of people would be killed.  Not good for humanity, therefore as a rule to be applied to all humanity it doesn't work.

On the other hand of all humanity observed the rule "thou shalt not cross against the light" many would be saved from being killed in traffic, therefore that is a good rule for society.

It's kind of like what your mom told you- "Because Johnny jumps off a cliff should YOU jump off a cliff??"

So in the case of SSM, they have a case legally and morally, in my opinion, to have the liberty to do what they want.  I have no problem with that as a libertarian.

On the other hand, as a NATURAL MORAL belief, I cannot justify SSM, because if everyone in humanity practiced SSM, humanity could not reproduce and therefore that is obviously bad for humanity.

Just as gay people should be free to practice what they think is right, I cannot accept that for myself morally, and they should not be free to impose their morality on me, just as I do not impose my morality on them.

Therefore I am a member of an organization and social structure - a community- of people opposed to SSM morally.As you say, our "sociality" --"

-- hits it right on the head.

That same sociality will exist in the eternities, with gender differences as an "eternal characteristic" as mentioned in the Proclamation along with opposition in all things, and including ALL of humanity- not just the half that looks like us.

I am in favor of diversity.  We must not just choose to be with people who look like US.  That is narcissism.

Yep- I like that idea a lot!

This seems to go along with the earlier, memorable thread you started on "Spiritual Intelligence and Secular Religion" (link below to encourage other posters to review it!)

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67542-spiritual-intelligence-and-secular-religion-how-close-are-we/

While many rely on the Spirit to bridge the gaps in spiritual intelligence, some resist that bridge so only a secular bridge will do. And where passion and emotional investment run high, that bridge must not come across as the product of a “greater intelligence,” or it too will be resisted. So the presenter must use high-SI methods 9whetehr he is high SI himself or not) to facilitate the recipient‘s “discovery” on an emotional level as well, with attendant emotional benefits …which is how the Spirit works after all… Augh!

Universal rules are good, liberty is good, and coming together in how these are defined and sustained in our individual and communal life is good. For this reason I often consider that human relationships that are not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise will continue in the lesser kingdoms for as long as the laws of that kingdom allow, and for as long as the those spirits have the power to maintain them, which cannot, sadly for the practitioners and by definition, be neither eternal nor forever. Some kingdoms engage in organizing intelligence and others not; some kingdoms are a continuation and others are not.

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Ahab said:

Actually,  everything is.  Who told you to believe everything here isn't analogous to everything there?

And the point of everything is to get a clean robe, however you choose to clean it.

Come on up here to where I am right now.

Common sense, reason, and God himself told me that everything is not analogous. 

And please tell me you are talking about a metaphorical robe or do you really think Mr. Clean is a path to heaven?

You seem to have the mind of a child and I suspect it is not like the gospel injunction to be childlike.

[Ahab]

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Common sense, reason, and God himself told me that everything is not analogous.

My point was that everything here is analogous (similar) to everything there in heaven.  That rather than thinking that everything in one place is totally different than everything in the other place that everything in both places is very similar and analagous to each other.

We were talking particularly about how children will be created in heaven, and I was saying they will be created similarly to how they are created right here.  That men and women here will still be men and women there, after resurrection, and that both will be needed to create children there just as both are needed to do that right here.

I see you as a child, too, The Nehor.  A child that still hasn't figured out where babies come from, in heaven.  Hopefully you will be married to a wonderful woman by the time you go back there and you will both know what to do to create a baby, hopefully through your own personal experiences here.

I'd opt for doing it the old-fashioned way than the 2 of you building your own science lab and creating/using test tubes.  And yes technically you would be able to do it that way, just as you can do it that way right here, as long as you use what you will need to use in the test tubes.  Something from her, and something from you.

I have faith that you will eventually figure it out.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

This seems to go along with the earlier, memorable thread you started on "Spiritual Intelligence and Secular Religion" (link below to encourage other posters to review it!)

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67542-spiritual-intelligence-and-secular-religion-how-close-are-we/

 

While many rely on the Spirit to bridge the gaps in spiritual intelligence, some resist that bridge so only a secular bridge will do. And where passion and emotional investment run high, that bridge must not come across as the product of a “greater intelligence,” or it too will be resisted. So the presenter must use high-SI methods 9whetehr he is high SI himself or not) to facilitate the recipient‘s “discovery” on an emotional level as well, with attendant emotional benefits …which is how the Spirit works after all… Augh!

 

Universal rules are good, liberty is good, and coming together in how these are defined and sustained in our individual and communal life is good. For this reason I often consider that human relationships that are not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise will continue in the lesser kingdoms for as long as the laws of that kingdom allow, and for as long as the those spirits have the power to maintain them, which cannot, sadly for the practitioners and by definition, be neither eternal nor forever. Some kingdoms engage in organizing intelligence and others not; some kingdoms are a continuation and others are not.

 

Yep thanks!

The spirit is number one and must rule our lives.THAT is the compass- the Liahona if you will

On the other hand, for some of us who are afflicted with the need for everything to make intellectual sense as well, if you cannot explain it intellectually- even if the intellectual explanation is that "you cannot explain it intellectually",  at least one has given an intellectual answer.  THAT is a deep need for me, and I know also for some others.

But what you have added is the idea of "community norms" for the celestial kingdom- that great "gated community" in the sky    I think that goes well with social Trinitarianism as well as our view of the Godhead as well.

We have self-determined ourselves by standards we take on freely in our community and invite all who want to participate in the community- who will keep the standards- to join us.  Others have other communities we personally do not want to join, thank you very much.

There is a reason the church is described symbolically as the "wife" of Christ, and not his "spouse".  We are to be one flesh with One who already has celestial flesh.  We are not the same flesh as He is- yet.  Our relationship to him is one of Love with the Other- one of a different flesh than we are, yet of the same humanity.  The goal in the unity of the sexes is to manifest tangibly the unity of mankind in all its differences, that all mankind is "one flesh" INCLUDING others of different races and genders.  To me, that is the promise of Christ and us as the church being his "wife".

That's my story and I am sticking to it.  

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, Ahab said:

My point was that everything here is analogous (similar) to everything there in heaven.  That rather than thinking that everything in one place is totally different than everything in the other place that everything in both places is very similar and analagous to each other.

We were talking particularly about how children will be created in heaven, and I was saying they will be created similarly to how they are created right here.  That men and women here will still be men and women there, after resurrection, and that both will be needed to create children there just as both are needed to do that right here.

I see you as a child, too, The Nehor.  A child that still hasn't figured out where babies come from, in heaven.  Hopefully you will be married to a wonderful woman by the time you go back there and you will both know what to do to create a baby, hopefully through your own personal experiences here.

I'd opt for doing it the old-fashioned way than the 2 of you building your own science lab and creating/using test tubes.  And yes technically you would be able to do it that way, just as you can do it that way right here, as long as you use what you will need to use in the test tubes.  Something from her, and something from you.

I have faith that you will eventually figure it out.

Do you also give lectures on how things are done in nations you have never visited. That would be much less brazen then your self-satisfaction in knowing how things work in a world have you have never seen with beings whose nature you do not understand or comprehend based on a dozen scriptural passages that speak in generalities.

Yet you have supposedly figured it all out. The Dunning-Kruger effect just keeps getting reaffirmed.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Do you also give lectures on how things are done in nations you have never visited. That would be much less brazen then your self-satisfaction in knowing how things work in a world have you have never seen with beings whose nature you do not understand or comprehend based on a dozen scriptural passages that speak in generalities.

Yet you have supposedly figured it all out. The Dunning-Kruger effect just keeps getting reaffirmed.

Well, to be fair, it wasn't exactly me that figured it out.  I'm simply believing what God has told me about it, both personally and through his authorized servants.  And now that I know and accept what he/they have told me I can also see it as just common sense.

Not that there aren't some other ways, in addition to what I alresdy know will work, but I'm still going to be doing it the old-fashioned way at least sometimes when my wife and I are both in a good mood.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Well, to be fair, it wasn't exactly me that figured it out.  I'm simply believing what God has told me about it, both personally and through his authorized servants.  And now that I know and accept what he/they have told me I can also see it as just common sense.

Not that there aren't some other ways, in addition to what I alresdy know will work, but I'm still going to be doing it the old-fashioned way at least sometimes when my wife and I are both in a good mood.

Go ahead. Just do not be surprised when you get there and are wrong.

And thanks for the nightmare fuel at the end there.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Go ahead. Just do not be surprised when you get there and are wrong.

And thanks for the nightmare fuel at the end there.

It is impossible for me to be wrong about this.

So I'm now telling you to not be surprised when you get there and see that what I told you was not only something you should have understood with common sense but is still my favorite and most recommended way to do it.

No labs.   No "Do Not Touch" signs.  Not even a blip from me that sexual relations with an opposite sex spouse is a bad or inferior or ungodly way to go about creating children.

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

A couple with mixed sexual orientations can certainly go through the motions, but in most cases a successful marriage relationship isn't possible. 

I don't see how this conclusion can be drawn.  It may or may not be true.  Are you aware of any studies that have demonstrated this?  If the marriage is successful but the participants have no reason to share the mixed orientations (and in the past they would have had massive reasons not to share and if private people, even now would have much reason due to prejudice from all sides plus given much of the reaction to couples like the Weeds, as in 'I pity his wife being married to a man who can't love her' and 'that is a marriage heading for disaster' which are comments I have seen multiple timesonline overtime....who wants to subject their relationship to that?), then how would anyone else become aware of their success?

Failures that may have to do with mixing orientation are pretty easy to spot as the couple breaks up and one partner thereafter seeks out same sex relationships, though even there the failure might be for nonsexual reasons such as financial, religious or other conflicts.

[TheSkepticChristian]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

LDS doctrine does include the teaching that there is an infinite number of creators/parents going both backwards and forward in eternity and if you think that isn't included in LDS doctrine then you're simply not aware of the fact that this idea is included in LDS doctrine. 

LOL CFR 

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

And FYI, an uncreated world is referred to as matter unorganized, which is what God often uses to create worlds.

Give me a break! Please read what I am saying. I am not talking about unorganized matter (what ever that is), I am talking about worlds with life that evolves. An infinite universe will have many Gods, but it will also have an infinite number of worlds that were not created by a God. 

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Perhaps not an "infinite chain," but LDS doctrine is that the world was created by more than one "creator."

Sure, but LDS doctrine doesn't even teach that God the Father has a Father. 

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't see how this conclusion can be drawn.  It may or may not be true.  Are you aware of any studies that have demonstrated this?  If the marriage is successful but the participants have no reason to share the mixed orientations (and in the past they would have had massive reasons not to share and if private people, even now would have much reason due to prejudice from all sides plus given much of the reaction to couples like the Weeds, as in 'I pity his wife being married to a man who can't love her' and 'that is a marriage heading for disaster' which are comments I have seen multiple timesonline overtime....who wants to subject their relationship to that?), then how would anyone else become aware of their success?

Failures that may have to do with mixing orientation are pretty easy to spot as the couple breaks up and one partner thereafter seeks out same sex relationships, though even there the failure might be for nonsexual reasons such as financial, religious or other conflicts.

I believe John Dehlin's survey indicated a much higher than average divorce rate for such couples. The sample size was pretty large, but non-random, so limited in value.

[Ahab]

29 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

LOL CFR 

Give me a break! Please read what I am saying. I am not talking about unorganized matter (what ever that is), I am talking about worlds with life that evolves. An infinite universe will have many Gods, but it will also have an infinite number of worlds that were not created by a God. 

Sure, but LDS doctrine doesn't even teach that God the Father had a Father. 

I have a feeling that we don't agree on what LDS doctrine really is, so I'll simply say that I believe it includes everything ever taught by any of our Lord's prophets and apostles on this world/planet and that if you'll simply show me that you accept everything every one of them has ever said you will be showing me that you accept our Lord's doctrine, which is LDS doctrine, on all issues. 

[JLHPROF]

47 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 but LDS doctrine doesn't even teach that God the Father has a Father. 

Sure it does.
Maybe not "officially" but that doesn't mean much.