Eternal Progression and “God’s god”

 Introduction

I received the following in an email recently and reproduce it here by gracious permission of the author. It concerns a much overlooked refutation of the Mormon doctrine of eternal progression, namely the complete absence of a reference to “God’s god” so to speak, in Mormon Scriptures. Please read on.

 

One curious thing (of many) about the Mormon doctrine is that of eternal progression. In all of my research about Mormonism, this doctrine seemed to provide the most easy dismissal of that faith. However, one obvious perspective (for me) on this doctrine seems to be ignored by those who provide information dismissing Mormonism.The Mormon doctrine stated

As you know the doctrine basically postulates that God was once a man as we are, and has been progressively exalted to a state of godhood. Now for Mormons, this seems to be a perfectly logical assumption. We are never static, we have fathers who’ve had fathers who’ve had fathers and so on in the spiritual world as well as the physical. Given that Mormons spend a great deal of time researching genealogy so that all may be baptized by proxy, my missionary acquaintances seemed to be at a loss to explain why God’s “god” is never mentioned in Scripture or the Book of Mormon. The implications of this angle of discussion don’t seem to come up in any of the Mormon (objective or otherwise) research either.

Why no mention?

If God had a spiritual father (a god) and a physical father (dad), then wouldn’t God with all of his perfection see fit to mention one word in his scripture? Wouldn’t God give one small bit of credit to his “god” for providing him with all of the gifts and graces that enabled him to progress to such an exalted status? How can you not mention anything about someone you loved so deeply and worshipped so magnificently? We even know a fair amount about Jesus’ step father (St. Joseph) and Scripture details a fairly good genealogy record of who begat whom. Why does God completely deny his “god” (or his physical father) of even a small shred of recognition. It is totally counter to the most basic logic. It would also be very useful to know how God went about his day worshipping and obeying his god or even his physical parents. What life circumstances challenged him and brought him closer to his god? Wouldn’t an historical documented template of God the Father’s life be useful to us on our journey to eternity? Even the pagan Romans and Greeks had thought it further through than Mormonism. It seems primitive logic necessitated at least a basic genealogy for that type of doctrine.

With such a profound emphasis on genealogy, such as the Mormons have, we should know one blessed thing about God’s “god”? Shouldn’t we?

Conclusion

The thoughts presented here demonstrate the falseness of the doctrine of eternal progression.