The only idea on the Godhead that really changed for Joseph Smith was his later teaching in 1843 that God the Father has body of flesh and bone. But what did he mean by that statement, if indeed he ever said those exact words? What does the historical reveal? Let's examine the evidence below.
The only other major idea that Smith supposedly taught in the 1840s is that God the Father had a father and he dwelt on an earth like all humans, and the father of God the father was yet fathered by yet another Father-God in an endless chain of deified "god fathers" or celestial grand fathers descending back into eternity; so that there is presumably no Supreme Being or First God since all the Gods became Gods by entering into human morality and progressing to Godhood. Did he actually teach that? Let's examine the evidence.
It is important to understand that Joseph Smith was continually learning and studying various scripture studies texts and even other languages, like his learning the Hebrew language of the Old Testament in 1835. I do not believe that Joseph Smith's core Godhead theology changed much over the course of his career as a revelator of new scripture. There were however a few changes or additions due to his gaining greater understanding that were introduced here and there in his theological doctrine on the Godhead.
One thing that does in fact change or develop is Joseph Smith's later understanding regarding the Father and Son in the 1840s. For, after studying the Hebrew language of the Old Testament (and studying the natural sciences in the School of the Prophets) around 1835, Joseph Smith starts to think God has a body of flesh just like Jesus by the year 1843. Before this time, Joseph Smith did not clearly teach that God the Father had a body of flesh until then in 1843: as explained by an LDS scholar on pages 25 to 26 in A Reply to Dick Baer by John A. Tvedtnes.
LDS scholar John Tvedtnes is not the only LDS scholar who admits that Joseph didn’t claim to see the Father as a flesh and bone being right away in the 1820s or even in the early 1830s. LDS scholars, Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, in trying to make sense of the Fifth Lecture of Faith, also admit that Joseph Smith, as late as 1835, “did not yet understand that the Father, like the Son, has a body of flesh and bones” (Source: Footnote 44 of The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths by Ari D. Bruening, and David L. Paulsen, 2008).
Ostler's Monarchical Theism: The One Supreme Being as Jehovah & The Divine Council as the "Elohim"
Here is a video of LDS scholar Blake Ostler explaining the original LDS doctrine of Monarchical Monotheism: Theology Talk Ep 1: Has God Always Been God? Blake Ostler Says Yes by Thoughtful Faith podcast.
At the 46 minute mark in the video linked above, they play a video of the Protestant scholar Michael Heiser explaining Jehovah and the Elohim/lesser gods in Jehovah's Divine Council. In the rest of the podcast, Ostler explains how LDS Scripture actually teaches there is one Deity (or one Supreme Being) as the Supreme Being or Source of all other gods mentioned in LDS theology. This aligns perfectly with my Godhead theology.
I agree with Ostler on the Council of Gods and Jehovah being the Supreme Being. Ostler's other theory to explain the King Follet Discourse, is that Father-Jehovah created for himself a planet and human parents to born from in order to model to Christ the path of a savior deity, as illustrated below (click on image to enlarge it):
Ostler's theory is certainly possible and thus I illustrated it above. However, I think that my twin genome theory is a better explanation; for I don't have to rely on the idea that Father-Jehovah created an actual planet just for himself to dwell on in order to obtain a body of human flesh. This hypothetical scenario is possible, but it can't be found in LDS Scripture and so as I see it is only an attempt to make sense of the isolated words of Joseph Smith (composed by his scribes) in the King Follet Discourse and Sermon in the Grove. In other words, you only have two documents where Joseph Smith describes God the Father seemingly resurrecting just like Jesus did. Up to this point, Ostler makes a point of sticking to the Scriptures as much as possible. For example, Ostler emphasizes that all of LDS Scripture supports the view that the Father is Jehovah and therefore he personally doesn't accept other LDS theologies that deny this (although he says he personally does not try to correct other LDS members for holding this view in a devotional setting).
An Alternative Theory to Ostler's: God the Father has a Panoptic Vision; the Deity of Lecture 2:2 Foresaw Jesus being Born on Earth and then the Deity constituted (formed) for Himself the Form of Jehovah (a personage of spirit) based on the Form of the future Earthborn Jesus and then after Christ resurrected the Father-Jehovah too became a body of flesh as they are one in Shared Divine Fullness
19 But Jesus said [answered them], “I tell you the truth [Truly, truly I say to you], the Son can do nothing alone [on his own initiative; by himself]. The Son does only what he sees the Father doing, because the Son does whatever the Father does [for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise]. 20 [For] The Father loves the Son and shows the Son all the things he himself does. But the Father will show the Son even greater things than this so that you can all be amazed [marvel; be astonished].
The Son knew his path because he saw the Father doing it, that is he saw through revelation the Father living out his exact life and dying and resurrecting. For as verse 20 says, the Father had "[shown] the Son all things he himself does." In other words, the Father as a noomatic twin duplicate of Jesus, had lived Jesus' exact same life in a spiritual realm within the Father's all knowing omnipresent divine mind and thus showing Jesus exactly what to do as the earthborn Christ.
19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.
Now let's see if there is any additional support for this point of view in LDS Scripture. In 1843, Smith explained in D&C 130: 6-8 (emphasis added):
6 The angels do not reside on a planet like this earth; 7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. 8 The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim.
[Note that Joseph's seer stone, which was often referred to as the Urim and Thummim, was thought to provide the seer, the ability to see past present in future].
So based on the passage above, Jehovah could see "... all things ... past, present, and future, [which] are continually before the Lord" which would include the full life of the earthborn Jesus. Jesus was then born with the same genome as the Father, and given divine attributes so that he was given glimpses of his life, or the life of his genome previously lived out by Jehovah on perhaps a globe like a sea of glass and fire; so that Jesus would know what to do on earth.
So while Blake Ostler argues Jehovah lived a literal life as a mortal, forming his own separate parents than Jesus' mother Mary, I think it makes more sense that the Father merely experienced Jesus' exact life supernaturally and/or in his own mind.
Is there anymore scriptural support for my point of view? Yes. Recall the 2nd Lecture on Faith, wherein the single independent Deity had faith in himself, not in any other. Thus the Deity mostly likely foresaw as an omnicient being a life in the flesh, either within the Deity's own mind or seeing the earthborn Jesus' life and living that exact life as if he was living it in real time a globe like a sea of glass and fire where all things ... past, present, and future, ... are continually before the Lord.
We also have scriptural precedence for this interpretation with the brother of Jared. In the book Joseph Smith's Seer Stones Hardcover by Michael Hubbard MacKay and Nicholas J. Frederick, they provide an illustration of the brother of Jared's panoptic vision where he sees in real time the full life of Christ but before Jesus was even born (click on each image to enlarge it):
.....
So just as the brother of Jared had a panoptic vision of Jesus' entire life, the Father-Jehovah being omnicient also had a panoptic vison of the life of Jesus as well. Then Jesus himself had the same panoptic vision and this explains what Smith meant when he said Jesus knew how to be the Savior by doing what he saw the Father do before him. And what Jesus actually saw the Father do was live his exact same life supernaturally as Jesus' identical twin duplicate genome in noomatic form.
In fact, I think all of LDS Scripture when combined points to this being the most likely correct interpretation. In the next illustration of mine below I combined Smith's 1830-1831 Book of Moses with the 1835 Lectures on Faith and the post 1835 Book of Abraham and the 1840s Sermons of Smith to show how the collective witness of the LDS Scriptures themselves best explain what Smith meant in his Sermons in the 1840s:
In 1831, Joseph Smith produced the Book of Moses and in Moses 1: 6, God says to Moses (emphasis added), "and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, ...; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all." So God knows Jesus will be the Savior as he has omniscient foreknowledge. God then gives Moses the power to be omniscient in verses 8-9:
And it came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the same he greatly marveled and wondered. ..."
This is how God the Father formed his noomatic body, for just like Moses in verse 8 "beheld ... all the children of men which are, and which were created ..." so too, God beheld the earthborn Jesus who would be the Savior before he was born. Because there is "no other God besides [Jehovah]," Jehovah-God (the Deity of Lecture 2) envisioned his form as the future earthborn Jesus of Nazareth which he foresaw, and then the Deity became that form but as a body of noomatic material or a personage of spirit (as Lecture 5 puts it). God says there is no God besides him because Jesus was Jehovah's "Only Begotten," meaning Monogene, meaning Jehovah's exact Gene/Genome duplicated into molded/stamped into flesh; so there is one God, the Deity/Jehovah and his duplicate genome or monogene. This is why the Book of Mormon is clear that Jesus is the Father and the Son, meaning they are the exact same genome, the same duplicate personage, one a personage of spirit-matter and the other a personage of earthly tabernacle (flesh), so there is only one God or "supreme governing power" (Lecture 2); for Lecture 5 explains that the two personages (as exact images of one another) representing the form of the Deity are His Godhead, meaning that which constitutes the Deity as basically two identical personages, the Father and Jesus as the exact same form in features and everything as twin duplicates, only one is composed of spirit-matter (nooma) and the other is a duplicate in the form of fleshly tabernacle.
Sometime between April 2, 1843, and February 4, 1846.[9] Willard Richards, who was not present, later recorded the following text (fig. 1) into the diary he was keeping for Joseph Smith, apparently utilizing William Clayton’s diary as source material: “the Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit,—and a person cannot have the personage of the H. G. in his heart.”[10] The first phrase ["the Father has a body of flesh & bones"] is not in any of the three transcript copies of William Clayton’s diary[11] and was added either by Richards, possibly in collaboration with Clayton,[12] or under the direction of Joseph Smith, or was missed when Clayton was copying from his notes into his diary.
Note the "apparently," "possibly" "or" this, "or" that is not history but wishful thinking. The fact is we don't know if Smith ever actually said that the Father has a body of flesh. The key fact is that Richards was not even present to hear Smith say the Father has a body of flesh! Ronald E. Bartholome is simply speculating that Richards added something Smith actually said on another occasion. That is certainly "possible sure," but its definietly not conclusive and is a rather shoddy way to base a major doctrine of the Godhead on if you ask me. Bartholome's article continues with these illuminating concessions in the footnotes:
[Footnote 9]: ... it is difficult to ascertain whether or not Joseph directed the addition of the line “the Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans the Son also, but” afterward when Willard Richards was transferring the contents of William Clayton’s diary to the journal he was keeping for Joseph Smith. ...
In other words, we don't know if Joseph Smith said the Father is Flesh at all when Clayton who was present does not mention it. Bartholome's article continues with Footnote 12:
... [LDS scholar] Ehat has formulated the hypothesis that Clayton and Richards may have even collaborated on the construction of the additional statement “the Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans the Son also,” based on William Clayton’s recollections of Joseph Smith’s teachings, while he was sharing the April 2, 1843, diary entries with Richards.
In correct<ing> two points in E[lde]r Hydes [Orson Hyde’s] discourse[3] he observed as follows,
The meaning of that passage where it reads ‘when he shall appear we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is’[4] is this, When the saviour appears we shall see that he is a man like unto ourselves, and that same sociality which exists amongst us here will exist among us there[5] only it will be coupled with eternal glory which we do not enjoy now.
No mention of the Father with a body of flesh here, but notice instead only talk of seeing the future Jesus as a man like ourselves with presumably a body of resurrected flesh. Keep that in mind as we proceed.
I find it interesting that Richards below later adds to Clayton's scribal dictation above that Joseph Smith allegedly taught that "the Father has a body of flesh," followed up by Smith talking about Nicodemus and "except a man be born of water & of the spi[ri]t ..."; and then a few days later, on April 7, Richards records Smith talking about the different types of biological bodies. Here are the two recordings by Richards below, again, remember that Richards was not present that day of April 2nd but is possibly adding what he may have thought he heard Smith teach on another occasion about the Father being flesh (or, and its possible, that's Richards' own made up point of view):
2 April 1843 • Sunday:
Meeting 7. eve resumd the subjct of the beast.— shewed very plainly that Johns vision was very different from Daniels Prophecy— one refering to things ex[is]ting in heaven. the other a figure of things on the which are on the earth.—[108] [p. [41]]
whatever principle of inteligence we attain unto in this life. it will rise with us in the revalatin [revelation],[109] and if a person gains more knowledge and intelignce. through his obedience & diligence. than another he will have so much the advantage in the world to come—
There is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven. before the foundation of the world upon which all blessings are predicated and when we obtain a blessing it is by obedi[e]nce to the law upon which that blessing is predicated.
again revertd to Elders Hyde mistake. &c the Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans[110] [p. [42]] the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit.— and a person cannot have the personage <of the H G. [Holy Ghost]> in his heart he may recive the gift of the holy Ghost. it may descend upon him but not to tarry with him.—
What is the meaning of the scriptures. he that is faithful over a few thi[n]gs shall be made ruler over many? & he that is faithful over many shall be made ruler over many more?
What is the mea[n]ing of the Parable of the 10 talents?[111] [blank] Also [blank] conversation with Nicodemus. except a man be born of water & of the spi[ri]t.—[112]
7 April 1843:
... Resurrection. . . . <of the body is denyed> by many because it is contrary to the law<s> of nature. because. flesh & bones are constantly changing— completely oncee[188] in 7 or 10 years. . . . if this is true a man in 70 years would have matter enough for 10 diffint [different] bodies. objectors says this resurrection cannot be true. for if so. men would be quarreling which body belong[s] to himself & othe[r]s.—who shall have the best right to it. I do not beleive that more than ¾ of our bodies is composed of animal organizati[o]n.[189] but is purely vegetable, hence through all the 70 years a man will have one or two parts. which will be the same original.— if he receives the matter if of the is <was> in possession of 50 years before he died— he is has the same bady [body].—the people liviing in <a> the house. are the occupants of the house. & the house though repaired all though [through?] its diff[er]ent parts & from time to time even to new timbers throughout, yet. it is said to be the same house still—
Here are the footnotes from the Joseph Smith Papers, which reads:
[108] See Revelation 4–5; and Daniel 7–8.
[109] For “revalatin,” the William Clayton journal has “resurrection.” (Clayton, Journal, 2 Apr. 1843.)
[110] TEXT: Possibly “ours mans”.
[111]See Matthew 25:14–30; and Luke 19:11–27.
[112] See John 3:1–5.
[113]vTEXT: Possibly “are”.
[114] See Revelation 7:3–4; 14:1.
... [188] TEXT: Possibly “new”.
[189] TEXT: Instead of “organizatin”, possibly “organizatins”.
The meaning of that passage where it reads ‘when he shall appear we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is’[4] is this, When the saviour appears we shall see that he is a man like unto ourselves
... D&C 129, D&C 130, and D&C 131. All three sections are notes from William Clayton and Willard Richards for 129 and 130. In the case of section 130 Willard Richards wasn’t even in Ramus where the speech was given therefore we are basing critical points of doctrine on notes of notes. ... D&C 130 certainly does seem to contradict Lecture 5 which describes the Godhead. However, D&C 130 was never accepted as scripture and there is no evidence Joseph said it or ever wanted it to be canonized as such. ... D&C 130 was added as scripture, with no basis by Brigham Young, and that is [not a good] justification for removing the Lectures which actually were accepted as scripture by the entire church. Shouldn’t D&C 130 not [have been] added if it contradicted previously accepted scripture? Shouldn’t conflicts be resolved by seeking the truth instead of discarding what is inconvenient?
... The Holy Spirit [Sacred Nooma] is called God in the [LDS] scriptures, as well as the Father and Son [compare Lectures 2 and 5]. ... It is God, the Holy Spirit, then, that is everywhere, substantially and virtually. The Holy Spirit is infinitely perfect and wise, one in substance, but one in wisdom, power, glory, and goodness [Compare Lecture 2]. Jesus prayed that all his disciples might be made one, as he and his Father are one. ... [see Lecture 5 where it explains that Christians are united as one just like the Godhead is one through the omnipresent Sacred Nooma (or Holy Spirit), i.e. the omnipresent fluid fullness of the Deity of Lecture 2]
... The one-ness of the Godhead may be in some measure illustrated by two gallons of pure water, existing in separate vessels, representing the Father and Son, and an ocean of pure water, representing the Holy Spirit [i.e. Sacred Nooma]. No one would say of these three portions of water that they were identically the same. Every portion would be a separate substance of itself, but yet the separate portions would be one in kind [or genome on my theory]—one in quality, but three in separate distinct identities. So it is with the Godhead so far as the spiritual matter is concerned. There is the same power, wisdom, glory, and goodness [i.e. nooma] in every part, and yet every part has its own work to perform, which accords in the most perfect harmony with the mind and will of every other part.
Each atom of the Holy Spirit [i.e. Sacred Nooma] is intelligent, and like all other matter has solidity, form, and size. It is because each acts in the most perfect unison with all the rest that the whole is considered one Holy Spirit. All these innumerable atoms are considered one Holy Spirit in the same sense that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered one God. The immense number of atoms, though each is all-wise and all-powerful, is, by virtue of their perfect concord and agreement, but one Holy Spirit [Sacred Nooma] ...
... The spiritual substance of man was formed in the beginning after the same image as the spiritual substance [or genome] of the persons of the Father and Son. ...
... That the Spirits of the Father and the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit, consist of a substance purely spiritual [i.e. noomatic], can by no means be denied by any believer in the sacred scriptures. It is a doctrine firmly believed by us and all the Latter-day Saints. It is a doctrine most definitely expressed and advocated in our pamphlet on the Kingdom of God .... It is there that we have definitely spoken of "the SPIRITS of the Father and Son:" it is there that we speak of the Holy SPIRIT: it there that we have expressly said that "God is a SPIRIT." ...
... The Father is a material being. The substance of which he is composed is wholly material. It is a [noomatic] substance widely different in some respects from the various substances with which we are more immediately acquainted. In other respects it is precisely like all other materials. The substance of his person occupies space the same as other matter. ... "God is a spirit." But that does not make him an immaterial being—a being that has no properties in common with matter. The expression, "an immaterial being," is a contradiction in terms. Immateriality is only another name for nothing. It is the negative of all existence. A "spirit" [personage of "nooma"] is as much matter as oxygen or hydrogen ... All the innumerable phenomena of universal nature are produced in their origin by the actual presence of this intelligent all-wise and all-powerful material substance called the Holy Spirit [i.e. God's fullness as oceanic fluid nooma]. It is the most active matter in the universe, producing all its operations according to fixed and definite laws enacted by itself, in conjuction with the Father and the Son. ...
... The person of the Father is a body of Spirit [compare the 5th Lecture that states the "Father is a personage of spirit”] ... "
Question.—"If ... God ... be like a man in figure, we must suppose the organs of the senses to have the same uses, and to be dependent on the same sources for information; his ears, in consequence, for hearing must be dependent on the transmission of sound. How, then, can he hear his people praying to him in Europe when he is in America?"
Answer.—Because the figure of two substances are alike, that is no evidence that the qualities of the two substances are alike. A wax figure may be in the shape of a man, and yet, we all know, that it has not the qualities of a man. A wise man may have the figure of a foolish man, and yet be far superior to him in the qualities of wisdom, knowledge and understanding. God may have the figure of a man, and yet have many qualities and susceptibilities which man has not got. The resemblance of figure, then, has nothing to do, as to whether other qualities shall be alike or unlike. The spiritual body [or personage of spirit] of the Deity is altogether a different kind of substance from the fleshly body of man, yet they may resemble each other in figure. The substances are entirely different, therefore, though the figures should resemble each other, this is no evidence that all the qualities must be alike.
... Man has legs, so has God [i.e. Father-Jehovah as a personage of spirit], as is evident from his appearance to Abraham. Man walks with his legs, so does God sometimes, as is evident from his going with Abraham towards Sodom. God can not only walk, but he can move up or down through the air without using his legs as in the process of walking. (See Gen. xvii. 22; also xi. 5; also xxxv. 13.)—"A man wrestled with Jacob until the breaking of day;" after which, Jacob says—"I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."—Gen. xxxii. 24-30. That this person had legs is evident from his wrestling with Jacob. His image and likeness was so much like man's, that Jacob at first supposed him to be a man.—(See 24th verse.) God, though in the figure of a man, has many powers that man has not got. ...
... The person of the Father is a body of Spirit [compare the 5th Lecture that states the "Father is a personage of spirit”] ... "
... The spiritual body [or personage of spirit] of the Deity is altogether a different kind of substance from the fleshly body of man, yet they may resemble each other in figure. The substances are entirely different, therefore, though the figures should resemble each other, this is no evidence that all the qualities must be alike.
... the fifth lecture speaks of the Father as a “personage of spirit,” which seems to contradict Joseph Smith’s teaching (expressed in 1843, several years after the lectures were given) that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22).[5] Elder James E. Talmage, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles who led the committee that revised the 1921 Doctrine and Covenants, felt that it would be best to “avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief.”[6] ... Based on these recommendations, the Lectures on Faith were dropped from the Doctrine and Covenants.
... They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. ... It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants.(Source: A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University)
So I modified Hansen's visuals below with my own words added based on my Godhead theory (click on each image to make them larger):
.....
So what Joseph Smith may have meant, if Richards' entry that formed D&C 130:22 is reliable, is the following: the Lectures on Faith are describing the Supreme Being, the Deity, who chose to form a noomatic genome (the Father-Jehovah as a personage) which was the exact image and likeness of the future earthborn Jesus, which the first Deity foresaw being an omniscient being. After forming his personage from noomatic material (called Jehovah, made in the image of the future earthborn Jesus), the Deity chose to duplicate the divine genes of his noomatic body (composed of spirit-matter) and imprint (or stamp upon like a wax seal) his express bodily image (genome) into Jesus at conception; so that Jesus, born of Mary with a body of flesh, was the Only Begotten (Unique Gene) of Jehovah. After Jesus died and became a body of glorified resurrected flesh and bone, the Father's personage was also changed into a bodily genome composed of noomatic flesh and bone (not earthly material, but a material nonetheless as all spirit is matter according to LDS Scripture).
Blake Ostler thinks Jehovah created his own earth before Jesus' birth and formed mortal parents for himself and chose to experience being born a human and live a life as a human; and that's how he as the Father has a father (as Joseph Smith says in the King Follet Discourse). Hence, Ostler thinks that Jehovah was not literally birthed by Heavenly Parents but had mortal parents he created and Jehovah has always basically been the only supreme being of Lecture 2:2. So a major difference between my view and that of Blake Ostler, is that Ostler believes that there is a mortal father of Jehovah. I have instead argued above that its better to turn to Scripture to interpret Smith so that its more likely Jehovah did not have a mortal father. But this is really my only real disagreement with Ostler, for I agree with almost every other aspect of his Godhead theory. For example, I agree with Ostler's view that there is no father deity above Jehovah and that Jehovah the Father is the Supreme Being.
My view is that what Joseph Smith could have likely meant in the King Follet Discourse is that the Father (Jehovah) had a father in the sense that if you read the 2nd Lecture on Faith, it refers to the only Supreme Being (Deity) as the "Father of lights." The word lights is important here because it likely refers to those humans who receive the divine light of Christ (D&C 88) and become glorified beings or gods (per Lectures 5 and 7 and D&C 121); and thus the Deity "fathered," i.e. formed or molded a noomatic personage of spirit (Father-Jehovah) to dwell in. This was the first stage of "fathering" more lights; so then the Deity began fathering lights or gods, but not by "human procreation" but by sharing his divine nature/DNA through the nooma. So technically, the Father-Jehovah (as a formed personage) had a "father" in the sense of a molder of his personage as Jehovah.
As the only monogene of Father-Jehovah, Jesus was the first personage to recieve God's nooma (in his case in the form of a dove) as a human which caused him to grow into godhood (see D&C 93). Christ then breathed the nooma onto his disciples and thus Jesus was fathering lights that partake/share in the divine nature (gene).
So that one could say that the independent being, the Deity himself, as the "Father of lights," fathered for himself a formed personage (Jehovah). So the Deity, as the only supreme governing Power, "fathered" his own personage of spirit, which is the form of Jehovah (called the Father in the 5th Lecture on Faith). Thus, Jesus had a "father" in the supernatural sense of Father-Jehovah's divine genome was copied in order to create (i.e. "father") the earthly body of Jesus of Nazareth. This would be why Revelation 3:14 refers to the resurrected body of Jesus as "the ruler of all God has made [1:5; Prov. 8:30–31] ... (emphasis added)." In other words, the Deity and his Logos or the word of his power (see Moses 1:32), made the earthborn Jesus as his Only Begotten/Monogene (Moses 1:6), which is all clarified in JST John chapter 1 (which I covered above).
So I think what Joseph Smith likely meant in the King Follet Discourse, based on a scriptural context, is that the Father of Jesus (who is Jehovah) had a father (a progenitor) in reference to the Deity as "the Father of lights" (Lecture 2:2, emphasis added). So what Joseph Smith likely meant was that the Father-Jehovah had a "father" in the sense that Jehovah's body as a molded personage of spirit-matter (Jehovah's noomatic form) was formed by a kind of progenitor who was the Deity himself in Lecture 2, which was the first God as the "father" (or molder) of Father-Jehovah (who in turn was the Father of Jesus). In other words, Jehovah's formed personage of spirit had a fathering-source (or progenitor) which was himself as he is the Deity of Lecture 2:2 (the Father of lights). So the Ultimate Father of all the lights/lesser gods, that is the "Head God over all other gods" (D&C 121:32), the supreme governing power, formed for himself a noomatic body named Jehovah as the first progenitor of the first great prototype (Jehovah) of all exalted beings or lights.
This "fathered" (or formed) personage of spirit (Jehovah) was then duplicated which means his noomatic DNA (Genome) was used to "father," that is form, the earthborn genome of the Son/Jesus; and thus Jesus has a "father" (progenitor) or a source, as does the "form" of Jehovah, which are both "fathered" by the first God, the Deity (the First Cause, or Supreme Being).
Christians become sons of God (or lights) through Jesus who becomes their divine Father as they become the children of Christ as the Book of Mormon itself puts it. In other words, the terms "father" and "son" are really about seeding the Deity's Sun-like shining nature (DNA) and replicating his glorious genomic image and shining countenance: which transforms humans into shining lights like stars in the sky. This language of God as a Sun-like being radiating a white lighted radiance, is conveyed in Matthew 5:16; 17:2-3 and Revelation 21:23 in the New Testament, and continued in 3 Nephi 19: 23-31 (also see this LDS article comparing 3 Nephi 19 to Numbers 6). So this language of the Sun and stars is used to describe the first God and humans becoming Christians and partaking of the divine shining nature. The original Sun-like source of this divine radiant Image is the Deity of Lecture 2, the only Supreme Being, whose radiant divine energy and personage forms humans into star-like lights. For more information on how Christians are described as literal star-like beings of light by the apostle Paul, see "So Shall Your Seed Be" by David A Burnett.
In my post here, I will provide further evidence from biblical scholarship and the Greek language of the New Testament, demonstrating that Jesus is an exact duplicate (described in scripture as being like a wax seal) of the Father as the Monogene of the Father. In my post here I will explain how Christians in turn are adopted into the Divine Genus through the spiritual sperma (DNA) of Christ that is carried through the fluid nooma breathed out by Christ onto his disciples in order to transmit Jehovah's divine genes through the nooma. As Jenn Arimborgo puts it:
Did you know that the Bible talks about the elements of gestation in a spiritual sense? I recently came across this verse in my personal studies:
"No one born (begotten) of God [deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin, for God’s nature abides in him [His principle of life, the divine sperm, remains permanently within him]; and he cannot practice sinning because he is born (begotten) of God" (1 John 3:9, AMPC, bold emphasis mine).
Other Bible versions use the term "seed" instead of "sperm" in this verse. That probably sounds a little less edgy, more polite. However, the actual Greek word in the Apostle John's original writing is transliterated sperma. This word, sperma, is translated "seed" in other New Testament passages, referring to what a farmer sows in the ground. In still others, sperma is rendered "descendants" or "offspring." However, in this verse, the wording "divine sperm" is clearly an accurate translation of the concept John was bringing to us when he penned the word sperma.
We can see this by the context: being born of God. Sperm and birthing are closely related ideas. Just as I was engendered by my physical father's seed, so I was born a second time, in spirit, by my heavenly Father's seed. Just as my dad's DNA is reflected in every cell of my body, so God's sperma remains in the makeup of my spirit and defines who I am. Here is another Scripture that utilizes the same illustration:
"You have been regenerated (born again), not from a mortal origin (seed, sperm), but from one that is immortal by the ever living and lasting Word of God" (1 Pet. 1:23, AMPC, bold emphasis mine).
Again, see my post here for more details. Thus, I think that when Joseph Smith asks rhetorically in the 1844 King Follet Discourse, "Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor?" I think he means that a father, as a progenitor, carries the seed/sperma that forms a son who has his likeness through DNA. But note that Joseph also uses the analogy of a tree having a progenitor. The New Testament is full of metaphors of Christ as a tree-like being or vine. I don't think it's a coincidence that Joseph Smith used this analogy. In the 1828 dictionary, progenitor is defined as:
An ancestor in the direct line; a forefather.
Adam was the progenitor of the human race.
Given that the 1828 dictionary references the Bible to define progenitor, it stands to reason that in the King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith was likely using New Testament language and concepts to describe God as functioning similar to a duplicating plant genome and seeds growing into trees (as the Scriptures quoted above convey). For Jesus is the eternal tree (or true vine) that acts as a resurrection-life-giving seed/DNA (see John 12:23-25). Just as Jesus is the true vine, and his Father (Jehovah) is the husbandman (or Farmer/Vinedresser) in John 15:1, in The Lectures on Faith (that again Joseph re-edited and re-published in 1844), the Deity is the originator (farmer/cultivator) as the Father of lights in Lecture 2:2, that formed the personage of the Father-Jehovah (a noomatic body), who's form was molded in the image of the future earthborn Jesus; so while Jehovah is the father (progenitor) of Christ, the father-like progenitor of Christ's father (Jehovah) is the Deity of Lecture 2: who "fathered" (i.e. created and/or formed the personage of Jehovah); and Christ is the seeding Father (progenitor) of Christians who receive his seed and image as the Book of Mormon teaches. For Christ is the prototype of a saved/exalted being (see Lecture 7).
As the 1828 dictionary explains, that "Adam was the progenitor of the human race", so too, Christ is the progenitor of a new creation. As Paul explained in in 1 Corinthians 15:45 (EXB):
[So also] It is written in the Scriptures: “The first man, Adam, became a living person [soul; Gen. 2:7].” But the last Adam [i.e. Christ] became a spirit that gives life.
In other words, the spirit/nooma carries the new divine DNA of Christ so that any person who is “in Christ, there is a new creation” (2 Cor 5:17): wherein they are literally undergoing a process of having their Adamic seed (DNA) replaced with the seed (DNA) of Christ (see here for more details about this process). Christians are thus no longer composed of the perishable seed of Adam but are literally “born anew, not of perishable but of imperishable seed ...” (1 Peter 1:23) as they now "share in the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4) through the seed of Christ (see Galatians 3:16).
So when we read Joseph Smith talking of fathers and sons in the King Follett Discourse, we have to keep in mind that he was always thinking in biblical terms, as he says in the same sermon that he is going to use the Bible to make his arguments. So consider these comments from Bible Hub article on the sons of God in the Bible:
The blessings of sonship are too numerous to mention, save in the briefest way. His sons are objects of God's peculiar love (John 17:23), and His Fatherly care (Luke 12:27-33). They have the family name (Ephesians 3:14 1 John 3:1); the family likeness (Romans 8:29); family love (John 13:35 1 John 3:14); a filial spirit (Romans 8:15 Galatians 4:6); a family service (John 14:23; John 15:8). They receive fatherly chastisement (Hebrews 12:5-11); fatherly comfort (2 Corinthians 1:4), and an inheritance (Romans 8:17 1 Peter 1:3-5).
These are all references to Christians being fathered by God. So given how much Joseph Smith's entire thinking and doctrines are always grounded in Bible Scripture, as one sees in The Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, it stands to reason that by progenitor and fathering, he had in mind these biblical concepts rather than the literal concept of a biological father procreating in human ways. Instead, it is more likely that by "father" he was using the more biblical meaning of God duplicating his seed and fathering Christians as new divine star-like clestial beings with Christ being the first fruits (sprouting seed) among many brethren/sons, as Paul says in Romans 8:29 (EXB):
God ... chose them ... to be like [molded to the pattern of; conformed to the image of] his Son so that Jesus would be the firstborn [i.e. the preeminent one, but also indicating others will follow] of many brothers and sisters [i.e. Jesus’ resurrection confirms that his followers will also share in God’s glory].
So I made this image to capture this idea of the Deity as the Father of lights producing Christians as star-like beings becoming glorified lights by grace and theosis through the seed/sperma of Christ as the only monogene:
Images of Jesus used are from here
Again, remember that Joseph Smith republished the Lectures on Faith that same year as the King Follet Discourse in 1844, with the Lectures clearly explaining that there is only one supreme being: as in the Deity (or divine "Farmer" or seed planter of future lights or lesser gods) is basically replicating (spiritually seeding/"fathering") his divine genome (through his "personage of spirit, glory/splendor and power"); and shedding forth or pouring into people His genes/seed through the fluid nooma: filling up Christ first (as the only Monogene) who received of the Deity's "fulness" (his exact genes, nooma and luminous glory); so that LDS Christians too are likewise "to be partakers of the same fulness, to enjoy the same glory" (Lecture 5) by receiving the divine seed and luminous glory through Christ's seed/DNA: as Christ became an immortal life gene-carrier, or as Paul puts it, Christ "became a life-giving spirit" (1 Corinthians 15:45); or as the Johannine community put it, Christ "came to give life [that they might have life]—life in all its fullness [abundance]" (John 10:10 EXB). This is referring to the replicating divine life or immortal life donated by Christ. Jesus, as a resurrected "holy being/genome," a luminous being, is the prototype of a saved being according to Lecture 7; for Jesus, as the resurrected Christ, is a duplicate of Jehovah's genome (sealed/molded into flesh); so that Jesus' resurrection-body carries divine DNA and He seeds (implants) the divine seed/DNA into Christians noomatically, in order to transform them into noomatic resurrect-able bodies: as Christians are noomatically transformed into members of God's Family in the Divine Council through the spiritual gestation-like process of theosis.
The LDS hymn If You Could Hie to Kolob reads thus (with emphasis added):
If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye, And then continue onward With that same speed to fly, Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity, Find out the generation Where Gods began to be? Or see the grand beginning, Where space did not extend?