Today, after James Talmage formed his own understanding of the Godhead in 1916, there is little mention by the LDS Church (or Brighamite sect) regarding Joseph Smith's teaching about a potential First God. Yet we know Smith likely believed in a First God (as the originating divine Power of all other Gods/gods, based on his re-cannonizing the Lecturess on Faith in 1844).
The fact is Smith began publically teaching on intelligences and the Plurality of Gods in 1843. Just a year later he died. So he did not have time to articulate a cohesive theology. But we do know that he did mention a First God of all other Gods/gods, which is covered by LDS scholar Blake Ostler (and I will cover below). What we also know is that several LDS Apostles wrote about the concept of a First God, including Brigham Young (which I will discuss below). Thus, I think the preponderance of evidence points to the most probable position that Joseph Smith believed in a First God: from which emanates all intelligence(s) and the formation of other Gods/gods.
To start, we find the belief of a First God from Orson Pratt, the brother of Pareley P. Pratt (who worked closely with Joseph Smith as a theologian up to the day Smith died in 1844). In his article A Mormon Theogony, Nate Oman writes:
The closest we generally get to discussion of the birth of the gods is when we ask the peculiarly Mormon question of how God progressed to become God. Orson Pratt, however, did get down to more fundamental questions of origins.
I have been reading Wilford Woodruff’s diary, and I came across an interesting passage. He is describing the journey of the first band of pioneers to the Salt Lake Valley. You have always wondered, of course, about what they talked about as they walked for days and days. (The pioneer children, we all know, sang.) As it turns out, they spent much of their time engaged in theological speculation. On June 26, 1847, Wilford recorded the following conversation with Orson Pratt in his journal [[note: orgional misspellings were edited by me with my words in brackets to add commentary]]:
Then the question arose how did God receive his present formation? The answer given by Professor Pratt was something in the following language:
He says I throw out my ideas not as doctrine but for you to look at. You know when a Chemist goes to work to analize or try new experiments they often have to try many times before they put a thing perfect and take certain processes which are unnecessary and are afterward laid aside; and pursue the most perfect course that can be pursued. It may reasonably have been the case with the first being formed which may be called God. As eternity was filled as it were with particles of intelligence who had their agency, two of these particles in process of time might have joined their interest together, exchanged ideas, found by pursuing this course that they gained [doubled in?] strength to what one particle or intelligence would have and afterwards were joined by other particles and continued until they formed a combination or body through a long process. Yet they had power over other intelligences in consequence of their combination, organization and strength. And in the process of time this being, body or God, seeing the advantage of such an organization desired company or a companion and having some experience goes to work and organizes other beings by prevailing [over] intelligences to come to gather and may form something better than at first. And after trials of this kind and the most perfect way sought it was found to be the most expeditious and the best way to receive their formations or bodies either spiritual or temporal through a womb. [[...]]
For those of you who worry about such things, Wilford does write, “And Any person who should chance to read these lines I wish them to understand that the Ideas given upon these points were not given as doctrin but opinion untill sumthing better should present itself or be decided by revelation.” It occurs to me that there might be a valuable Mormon apologetic in this discussion. We tend to love faith promoting stories that take the form of “modern science has shown X, but we knew X by revelation long before modern science.” The most common example would be the stories we tell about the Word of Wisdom. Here we have Orson Pratt talking about the random evolution of complex intelligent life from a primordial soup a full twelve years before the publication of On the Origin of Species!
In the video presentation Gods Above God the Father by The Church of the Firstborn YouTube Channel, I found that while I don't agree with everything presented on this YouTube channel (for example I reject the Adam-god theory), I nonetheless think this presentation is the best presentation of the original LDS Godhead: as it includes quotes from original LDS Prophets and Scripture, including Joseph Smith, and deals with the other Godhead theories yet supports the first God theory.
The description for the video states:
This presentation is about the doctrine revealed by the Prophet Joseph Smith during the last period of his life about a Plurality of Gods, that God the Father is an exalted man, and that Gods exist above him in the Grand Council of Heaven, quotes about Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other early Mormon leaders teaching this doctrine and also scriptural and logical arguments they made to support it. It also addresses modern apologetic arguments for a "Monarchical Monotheism" interpretation of Joseph Smith's Nauvoo cosmology, and evidence for and against an "Infinite Regression of Gods" model versus a first "Head God over all other Gods" in the Kingdom of Heaven.
In the comments section the author of the video writes:
I'm really not critical of Infinite Regression -- if that makes sense to you then great! I wanted to make sure I included Brigham Young's statements clearly articulating that position and pointed out that the scriptures and quotes I use to argue for a "first God" are not entirely conclusive. But to me it makes more sense that there was a first God who started the process. If we trace back all human life on this planet, even though it seems to go back endlessly, eventually it goes back to a first father before all other fathers. I believe that in eternities that there would similarly be a first Father before all other Fathers. ... Orson Pratt speculated on how the first God came to develop a body (see 49:50 in the video). It's entirely speculative and theoretical, but to me that makes more sense than believing that this process goes back infinitely (So there's already infinite Gods basically) and human beings and every animal and plant life just 'naturally existed' without any intelligent design to create them or start the process. It almost reminds me of the ancient Greek theory that this world had always eternally existed and didn't actually have a creator.
Here are some screen shots of the main highlights of his video on a first God.
In the first screenshot he deals with Blake Ostler's theory and agrees that in Smith's Sermon in the Grove, he mentions a Head God over the Gods and how this aligns with a first God that Parley P. Pratt speculated on (as quoted above from Woodruff’s journal):
