The following is taken from a talk by BYU Professor, Dr. Rodney Turner, “The Doctrine of the Firstborn and Only Begotten,” in The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God, ed. H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989), 91–118. All that follows are mere segments of that talk.

"Although I believe my remarks to be compatible with accepted Church doctrine, I speak for no one but myself. Nor would I have them written in granite. As time goes on they will undoubtedly be modified by the “line upon line” principle of revelation.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

Men are born into mortality with the talents and abilities acquired by obedience to law in their first estate. Above all talents—greater than any other capacities, chief among all endowments—stands the talent for spirituality. Those so endowed find it easy to believe the truth in this life. . . . The word of truth is sent to some before it goes to others because they earned the right to such preferential treatment in preexistence” (Millennial Messiah 234–35).

Next Subject:

Mormonism is simultaneously monotheistic, tritheistic, and polytheistic. There is but one God, yet there is a Godhead of three, and beyond them, “gods many, and lords many” (1 Cor. 8:5).
But regardless of the multiplicity of personages bearing divine titles, they are ‘one’ in that priesthood which governs throughout the eternities.

Unlike the carnal gods of mythical Olympus, they are not competing against one another for status and dominion. To the contrary, true Gods are welded together by the universal Spirit of the Lord, as well as by shared attributes, ideals, and purposes (D&C 88:13, 41).

Hence, the passage: “Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end” (D&C 20:28; emphasis added).

Just as there is ultimately but one God in principle, so is there but one Spirit, one priesthood, and one Savior…

However, it may be that virtually all names, titles, and epithets are shared by the Father and the Son. To the extent that this proves the case, they are indeed, one, for shared honors implies shared activities and attainments.

Next Subject:

Those divine attributes man acquires in the first estate are “added upon” in mortality, and perfected in the resurrection. The degree of success in this process is relative to each individual’s compliance with divine law.

Next Subject:

A plurality of gods and inhabited worlds is essential to the validity of the doctrine of exaltation wherein millions of men and women from this one earth will reign as kings and queens over their endless posterities—posterities that will inhabit the endless earths yet to be organized (D&C 132:19–20).

The process of begetting spirit offspring, preparing earths on which they may dwell, and perfecting all things, is an endless divine cycle—”one eternal round” (1 Nephi 10:19; Alma 7:20; 37:12; D&C 3:2; 35:1). Among other things, such a “round” may equal one eternity or one creative epoch of the gods.

Next Subject:

The spirit personage known as the Holy Ghost (D&C 130:22) was apparently begotten of the Father following the spirit birth of Jesus. Heber C. Kimball taught: “Well, let me tell you, the Holy Ghost is a man; he is one of the sons of our Father and our God; and he is that man that stood next to Jesus Christ, just as I stand by Brother Brigham” (JD 5:179). Franklin D. Richards quoted Joseph Smith as saying that “the Holy Ghost is now in a state of probation which, if he should perform in righteousness, he may pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has” (Ehat and Cook 245).

Next Subject:

Interestingly, whereas the literal fatherhood of God is accepted without any qualms by members of the Church, the same cannot be said of Jesus either before or after his resurrection. Many are not emotionally prepared to think of the Savior as being married or, worse, having children. However, a moment’s reflection makes it clear that it can be no other way. The Prophet Joseph Smith said:

If a man gets a fullness of the priesthood of God he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the House of the Lord. . . . All men who become heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ will have to receive the fulness of the ordinances of his kingdom” (TPJS 308–09; emphasis added).

A basic commandment is to “multiply, and replenish the earth” (Gen. 1:28). Then too, it was Christ who stated that the law of celestial marriage was “instituted for the fulness of my glory” (D&C 132:6; emphasis added).

The Lord would hardly require men to obey a celestial law that he, himself, did not obey.

Conclusion:

There is yet much to be revealed in this world of the things of God, and even more in the eternity to come. But what we do know—what we see eye to eye—is worth worlds. Salvation is a miracle.”

A COUPLE OF INSIGHTS

“It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was ‘the first man of all men’ (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal (original) parent of our race” (The Origin of Man, Improvement Era, Nov, 1909, pg. 80).

Another insight from Elder Bruce R. McConkie: “The scriptures set forth that there were in the Garden of Eden two trees. One was the tree of life, which figuratively refers to eternal life; the other was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which figuratively refers to how and why and in what manner mortality and all that appertains to it came into being” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, pg. 86).

How is Joseph Smith viewed by the average American and non LDS historian?

Dr. Richard Bushman, noted historian and one of the general directors of the Joseph Smith papers said: “Most educated, informed Americans, as well as historians view Joseph Smith as a fraud. Perhaps he is a colorful and lovable fraud but still a charlatan of some sort, really is the prevailing view among my colleagues in the history field, and, of course, we know why.

It’s because Joseph Smith asked people to believe the unbelievable. In a modern time, to believe in an angel appearing, gold plates buried, an ancient record, a translation of this record…

When Joseph has his first vision he is told by a minister that it is not to be believed and that it is a satanic delusion. Joseph is stunned and angry at this reaction. Research tells us that between 1785 and 1850 there were at least 33 recorded accounts of various types of visions by individuals other than Joseph.

The reason that Joseph Smith ran into trouble with clergymen was not because his vision was strange and out of the way, but because it was so common. The Methodists by 1830 were trying to calm down the membership to discourage that culture. They were on their way to respectability.

All of these visions were a little too rash for them. Between 1790 and 1850 they were one of the fastest growing churches in the nation. However, when you move away from the first vision and on to the next major event, namely the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, you find just the reverse, (it was not common at all).

This is an unusual circumstance and requires explanation. One of the puzzling things about the Book of Mormon is why Joseph Smith would have written a book. Now there is the heavenly explanation, he was commanded to do so by an angel and has no choice, as it were.

But to someone outside the church trying to look at it from a historical perspective, it’s curious. Why would he try to write a book when he was unschooled? That was not the common way you started a religious career.

Take the case of a near contemporary, Charles G. Finney, that became the preeminent revivalist of his generation.

He also had a vision in 1821; he lived only a few miles from Joseph Smith’s house. After his vision of a man that appears to him but says nothing, he is elated and believes he has seen the Savior and begins preaching to anyone who will listen. He eventually attracts thousands of people to hear him.

That is the customary career path for anyone who had religious urgency. They demonstrated their preaching ability, collected congregations and grew.

Joseph Smith does not follow that path. He is not known to have preached a sermon before the Church was organized in 1830. He has no reputation as a preacher and even after the Church is organized, he is not known as a charismatic preacher.

What he does instead is to dictate and publish a book, something that you would hardly expect of him. It was unusual for him and puzzling because of what the book was. What is the Book of Mormon?

Historians coming (casually) to it are more likely to say it’s a version of deep Indian history, because there were many books like that. However, the Book of Mormon is not like those books.

If you were reading it, you would have a great difficulty finding out where it spoke about Indians. You can’t even prove it took place in America, looking at the text. What the Book is if you look at it in comparison with other literature is a Bible. That’s how the first people who looked at it described it. It was a gold bible.

In reality it is the most massive apocryphal (hidden) work in existence, an extension of the Bible story, with many new events and sermons.

It contains prophesies like the Bible, preachments, visions, the warning of prophets to rulers. It’s obsessed with the rise and fall of Israel. It’s written in KJV Bible language and evokes a civilization, it not just a set of preachments, like the General Conference reports.

It has all sorts of history, there is an architecture to discern, there is a lot of politics, an economy, stories of battles and military strategy and a profusion of characters, over 250 people and places and different names. It is a very rich account of a religious people conducting their lives.

The question we have from all of this is how was such a work produced? Every description we have of Joseph Smith, from friends and foes alike, is as an unlearned farm boy. The second question is how did it survive, when the Bible is supposed to be the only source of religious truth?

To present a rival or competitor to the Bible is a very daring thing to attempt. It raises another question. Why would anyone believe that? A similar problem is with the Book of Moses, trying to find where it fits. (For historians) It’s a puzzler.”