The Nature of God and the "Divine Lego Set"

I've been hearing some strange things at my church and I thought I'd try asking you guys here.

One of the things I've been hearing is that supposedly Heavenly Father once was a human. And I don't mean the He has a body thing, but that once upon a time He was mortal and could sin. Is there any scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, or teachings of the prophets) that supports this?

Second I've heard the belief that God didn't really create the Universe. He just found the stuff (Hence the Lego set bit.) and put it together. Is there any scripture to support this also?

[Justice]

So, if He did use existing matter and "build" the universe, how is that not creating?

Originally Posted by Justice

So, if He did use existing matter and "build" the universe, how is that not creating?

I guess it technically is creating, but it just seems to downgrade him from Supreme Creator to somebody that just put the pieces together.

[Gwen]

how does that idea downgrade god? not all creators are created equal .... don't know about you but i've never been nor ever will be able to do this Abston Church of Christ with legos.

[Misshalfway]

One of the things I've been hearing is that supposedly Heavenly Father once was a human. And I don't mean the He has a body thing, but that once upon a time He was mortal and could sin. Is there any scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, or teachings of the prophets) that supports this?

It is my understanding of LDS doctrine that eternal progression is an important concept but the idea that God was once a fallen sinful man like us is not part of that.

Jesus Christ is a good example. He did need to come to earth to gain a physical body, but he didn't/couldn't sin. His was a great condescension among the children of men.

I have heard some saints use the JSmith quote about "as man is, God once was" to mean that Father was once sinful. My understanding though is that first of all, we don't have any more doctrinal/official information to clarify what Joseph meant and that our doctrine now is that eternal progression does not necessarily need to include a sinful state first.

The D&C and PofGP talks about how God "organized" the universe. It is my understanding that matter cannot be created or destroyed. It appears the scriptures confirm this by giving us a peek into how the creative process actually happened. It is explained that God "organized" intelligence to make spirit children and that he used unorganized matter to organize the universe. Perhaps the word "create" isn't the most accurate term to describe God's process.

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

It is my understanding of LDS doctrine that eternal progression is an important concept but the idea that God was once a fallen sinful man like us is not part of that.

Jesus Christ is a good example. He did need to come to earth to gain a physical body, but he didn't/couldn't sin. His was a great condescension among the children of men.

I have heard some saints use the JSmith quote about "as man is, God once was" to mean that Father was once sinful. My understanding though is that first of all, we don't have any more doctrinal/official information to clarify what Joseph meant and that our doctrine now is that eternal progression does not necessarily need to include a sinful state first.

The D&C and PofGP talks about how God "organized" the universe. It is my understanding that matter cannot be created or destroyed. It appears the scriptures confirm this by giving us a peek into how the creative process actually happened. It is explained that God "organized" intelligence to make spirit children and that he used unorganized matter to organize the universe. Perhaps the word "create" isn't the most accurate term to describe God's process.

Okay. That's helpful but how does it sink with the wording in Genesis.

Also I just want to clarify I'm not trying to be a troll, I'm just confused.

[Misshalfway]

There are lots of scriptures that shed light on the creation part of your questions. Go read the creation story in the Pearl. You can also use the index in the triple to study spirit in the D&C.

I am not sure there is anything definitive on the eternal progression of God himself. The King Follet Discourse is the main source for that information and it has not been canonized. There are also questions about the accuracy of the text. There are, I believe, five versions of the discourse recorded. So, in my mind, we can appreciate what the discourse is trying to say but we kinda gotta keep it in perspective too.

[Misshalfway]

Originally Posted by The_Doctor

Okay. That's helpful but how does it sink with the wording in Genesis.

Also I just want to clarify I'm not trying to be a troll, I'm just confused.

Remember that the LDS position is that we believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. The account of the creation in the Pearl sheds light and adds understanding to what the Bible is trying to say.

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

There are lots of scriptures that shed light on the creation part of your questions. Go read the creation story in the Pearl. You can also use the index in the triple to study spirit in the D&C.

I am not sure there is anything definitive on the eternal progression of God himself. The King Follet Discourse is the main source for that information and it has not been canonized. There are also questions about the accuracy of the text. There are, I believe, five versions of the discourse recorded. So, in my mind, we can appreciate what the discourse is trying to say but we kinda gotta keep it in perspective too.

Would it be more accurate to say that no one knows for certain about the Creation? That there's no "official" set belief on it, besides that God was the cause of it.

Edit: Okay.

[Misshalfway]

Originally Posted by The_Doctor

Would it be more accurate to say that no one knows for certain about the Creation? That there's no "official" set belief on it, besides that God was the cause of it.

Edit: Okay.

Not for me.

To say that there is probably more that we don't know about the creative process than we do know might be more accurate to me.