Before We Were Spirit Children?

[inquiringmind]

With all due respect to these incredibly brilliant individuals, they all bought into (or originated!) Neoplatonism- which was a combination of Platonism and Aristotelianism.

In my opinion, Mormons certainly do not accept that pov nor should they.

Well frankly, I don't know what he is talking about. Honestly I don't understand why this is an important issue.

It's odd you should be so baffled by John Taylor's use of the expression "this eternity" when you yourself (earlier here) said that eternity doesn't always mean "forever."

JeremyOrbeSmith posted a lot of evidence to support that statement, and if the word "eternal" doesn't necessarily imply endless duration, it would mean that "this eternity" could be one of many.

It would also mean that the statement (in Doctrine and Covenants) that the elements are eternal doesn't necessarily imply that they had no beginning.

As for creation ex-nihilo, what if God created everything (including the elements) out of Himself.

Not out of nothing, but out of what He's made of.

Out of mind and thought (like quantum physics and the biocentric model of the universe might suggest)?

Maybe you'd still call that creation ex nihilo, but I thank both of you for confirming my suspicion that the standard works never actually say that the physical elements are uncreated

Edited April 28, 2012 by inquiringmind

[tana]

As for creation ex-nihilo, what if God created everything (including the elements) out of Himself.

Not out of nothing, but out of what He's made of.

I wrote this a long time ago, now I finally get a chance to use it....

Back in the beginning, when god was still young, he created heaven and earth, the moon and the sun.

He rested a while to admire his craft, then set back to work, to finish his task.

He reached in his bucket of universal goop, and pulled out a handful of primordial soup.

He patted together a man and a woman, then turned em both loose in the garden of eden.

Now the point of this story, I guess I should say, is where did he get that bucket of clay?

Where did he get the eternal components, to make all the bugs, the birds and the planets?

Did he wake up one morning in a home depot store,not the kind at the mall, but much bigger by far.

Did he find himself standing in a field full of wealth, then set out to make some worlds for himself.

If this story is true, then god is not all, for where did he get the stuff in his well.

Was it made by another, well how can this be, I know some will argue, mere humans can't see.

But he did give us wisdom, intuition and insight, he gave us Mohammed, Buddha and Christ.

He gave us a will to seek for the truth, to question the teachings we learned from our youth.

Now science will say, first came atoms and cells, and out of this springs our thoughts and our all.

That we crawled from the ocean, of this I don't know, but they also infer that we don't have a soul.

The masters will tell, that mind did come first, and it's thought that creates the matter of the universe.

I like that one better, it rings true to me, our thoughts are gods thoughts, and thought is energy.

So if in the beginning was god, and just him, from what are we made of, from where did we come.

The scriptures and masters both agree on this sum, the father, the son and we are all one!

[mfbukowski]

I agree.....since I happen to be a "Mc" meself.

Well, since egos exist now, it stands to reason that they have always existed. But, are egos the entity, or just the entities projection? Egos are fluid and change with the times....with acquired knowledge. There must be a core awareness that does not change, is not dependent on the information. It can have no biases or identity. I believe logic, threads of reasoning - and understanding/awareness, are two different things. There is a thinker, and a listener/understander. If one makes the listener a thinker.....you'll need another listener to understand.

Universal awareness/God, divides up into entities/egos.....and does this for as long as it desires. But eventually, one will tire of of the endless cycle of chasing physical stimuli, and the loneliness of separation.....and will gladly abandon the illusory sense of self.

The 'little man in the head' paradox makes this the only option I see available.

I don't believe in a little man in my head. I think we are mostly contingent beings highly culturally conditioned that that most of what we think we know is a result of that cultural conditioning.

On the other hand, we have direct experience and that is pretty much all we can really say that we know beyond doubt. The certainty is only partially what is philosophically called "knowledge", but the question for me is more about emotional certainty.

I know- and I think the term is properly used there- that God has spoken to my mind and heart, and there is no infinite regress there of "little men"

I think there is a core being which we experience as eternal- inside us we "know this is true", and that something transcends all that is culturally conditioned. There is a universal quality among people to survive, and to find peace in their lives, and there are "rules" that work to achieve both cultural survival and a sense of peace in one's life.

And oddly- or not oddly at all (!) those values and rules are captured in the 10 commandments and I would argue, further, in all the doctrines of Mormonism.

Funny how that works, huh?

But perhaps the homunculus works for epistemology- I would argue against it- but I think it is doomed in the sense of choice. There is no question that something I see as "me" makes choices and chooses words- as I am doing now. And you will choose to read this and think about it or not- respond or go have a sandwich.

There are no little men in my mind who decide if it is time for me to have a sandwich or not- that's all up to me!

Edit - oh yeah and congratulations on your spiffy family!

Edited April 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

It's odd you should be so baffled by John Taylor's use of the expression "this eternity" when you yourself (earlier here) said that eternity doesn't always mean "forever."

Where did I indicate I was "baffled" by that expression? I thought I was having trouble with "intelligence light and truth" but I guess I was wrong.

[inquiringmind]

.

Where did I indicate I was "baffled" by that expression?

Here.

But I'm more interested in what terms like "eternities," and "this eternity" mean.

What did you think of that quote from John Taylor?

Well frankly, I don't know what he is talking about

If you had no idea what he was talking about, weren't you baffled?

As far as I can see, there is no explicit denial of the creation of elements, but I think the implication is that God "creates" by "organization", not by ex nihilo magic.

Thank you.

Edited April 28, 2012 by inquiringmind

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I'm not sure if my point was clear with the linguistic stuff. The idea is that calendars [world-ages, etc] are essentially communally-agreed-upon fictions specifically cutting out and delineating finite chunks of time in order to facilitate organization, and therefore things [intelligences, elements, embodied Gods, whatever] can exist "before [a given measure of] time" while being themselves eternal and only organizing other physical things from preexisting material.

[blackstrap]

In the PoGP there appears to be a hiarchy of intelligence levels with Christ(God/?) at the top. I have a problem with God taking a bunch of primorial intelligence soup and stuffing it into a spirit body with different amounts in each body.I am happier with an eternally existing amount of intelligence that was given a form in which to dwell.

[inquiringmind]

I'm not sure if my point was clear with the linguistic stuff. The idea is that calendars [world-ages, etc] are essentially communally-agreed-upon fictions specifically cutting out and delineating finite chunks of time in order to facilitate organization, and therefore things [intelligences, elements, embodied Gods, whatever] can exist "before [a given measure of] time" while being themselves eternal and only organizing other physical things from preexisting material.

I think that idea is a little unclear, but I found the linguistic stuff very interesting.

Eternity: late 14th century, from Old French eternité (12th century), from Latin aeternitatem, from aeternus (see eternal).

Eternal: late 14th century, from Old French eternel or directly from Late Latin aeternalis, from Latin aeternus "of an age, lasting, enduring, permanent, endless," contraction of aeviternus "of great age," from aevum "age" (see eon).

Eon: 1640s, from Latin aeon, from Greek aion, "age, vital force, lifetime," from Proto-Indo-European root *aiw- "vital force, life, long life, eternity" (cf. Sanskrit ayu "life," Avestan ayu "age," Latin aevum "space of time, eternity," Gothic aiws "age, eternity," Old Norse ævi "lifetime," German ewig "everlasting," Old English a "ever, always").

Aeon: 1640s, from Latin aeon, from Greek aion "a period of existence, lifetime; age, generation;" in plural, "eternity."

Age: late 13th century, "long but indefinite period in human history," from Old French aage (11th century, Modern French âge) "age; life, lifetime, lifespan; maturity," earlier edage, from Vulgar Latin *aetaticum (cf. Spanish edad, Italian eta, Portuguese idade "age"), from Latin aetatem, "period of life, age, lifetime, years," from aevum "lifetime, eternity, age," from Proto-Indo-European root *aiw- "vital force, life, long life, et

Thanks again.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

No prob.

[inquiringmind]

In the PoGP there appears to be a hiarchy of intelligence levels with Christ(God/?) at the top. I have a problem with God taking a bunch of primorial intelligence soup and stuffing it into a spirit body with different amounts in each body.I am happier with an eternally existing amount of intelligence that was given a form in which to dwell.

To help students understand that the “intelligences” in Abraham 3:22–23 refer to spirit children of Heavenly Father, read and discuss the following statement from the First Presidency—Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose: “God showed unto Abraham ‘the intelligences that were organized before the world was’; and by ‘intelligences’ we are to understand personal ‘spirits’ (Abraham 3:22, 23); nevertheless, we are expressly told that ‘Intelligence’ that is, ‘the light of truth was not created or made, neither indeed can be’ (Doc. & Cov. 93:29)”

http://www.lds.org/m...braham?lang=eng

If I understand this correctly, it's saying that the intelligences spoken of in the book of Abraham have already been born as spirit children of Heavenly Father, but the Intelligence they're all a part of was not created or made.

Edited April 28, 2012 by inquiringmind

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Not to derail this into yet another interminable evolution thread, but speaking of exalted primates and etymologies, I've always been amused at those who look down on other primates as being subhuman, since the word "primate" comes from "High Bishop," from around 1200, from Middle Latin primas, "Church Primate," from Late Latin primas "of the first rank, chief, principal," from primus "first." The meaning of "biological order including monkeys and humans" is from 1898, from Modern Latin Primates (Linnæus), from plural of Latin primas, so-called from supposedly being the "highest" order of mammals (originally also including bats). Hence, primatology "the study of Primates," from 1941.

The point being, one rarely hears of "Church Primates" these days. *laugh*

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[inquiringmind]

A relevant quote from Charles W. Penrose.

But if God is an individual spirit and dwells in a body, the question will arise, “Is He the Eternal Father?” Yes, He is the Eternal Father. ‘Is it a fact that He never had a beginning?” In the elementary particles of His organism, He did not. But if He is an organized Being, there must have been a time when that being was organized. This, some one will say, would infer that God had a beginning. This spirit which pervades all things, which is the light and life of all things, by which our Heavenly Father operates, by which He is omnipotent, never had a beginning and never will have an end. It is the light of truth; it is the spirit of intelligence. We are told in the revelations of God to us that, “Intelligence or the light of truth never was created, neither indeed can be” (JD 26:23).

Edited April 28, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Calm]

In the PoGP there appears to be a hiarchy of intelligence levels with Christ(God/?) at the top. I have a problem with God taking a bunch of primorial intelligence soup and stuffing it into a spirit body with different amounts in each body.I am happier with an eternally existing amount of intelligence that was given a form in which to dwell.

And him choosing how much and what to put into each identity results in the same problem as the creation of man out of nothing, God is then responsible for the character of the individual, he has 'programmed' the personality or whatever it is that is the spirit, and therefore ultimately responsible for the choices the individual makes, imo.

[inquiringmind]

This was also interesting.

...Elder Bruce R. McConkie, in a 1974 letter to Walter Home, made the following points: It was his judgment that spirit element exists and was organized into spirit beings; or in other words, “intelligence exists and it became those intelligences that were organized.” There was no agency prior to spirit birth and we did not exist as entities unto that time. Continuing in the same letter, he wrote:

I do know that this matter has arisen perhaps six or eight times in the years that I have been here and have been involved in reading and approving priesthood and auxiliary lessons. In each of these instances, the matter was ordered deleted from the lesson. In each case it was expressly stated that we have no knowledge of any existence earlier than our existence as the spirit children of God. The views in this field were described as pure speculation. President Joseph Fielding Smith personally, on more than one occasion, directed this material not be published and said that he did not believe it, and of course . . . I do not believe it either.

Brother McConkie went on to say that the term intelligence was used by B. H. Roberts to describe entities that supposedly existed before they were clothed with spiritual bodies. Such a notion, Elder McConkie says, was “pure fantasy and pure speculation.” In his judgment the 93rd Section of the Doctrine and Covenants, which speaks of intelligence, is simply a summary statement of what Lehi is talking about in 2 Nephi 2 where he presents an argument that if such and such does not exist then something else does not, and finally reaches the conclusion for argument’s sake that “all things must have vanished away” (v. 13). ‘This, of course, is merely a form of reasoning not intended to mean that all things have or could vanish away. . . .” Finally, in the last paragraph of the letter, Elder McConkie stated that this subject is not something he got very excited about.

In Mormon Doctrine, Elder McConkie writes that “Intelligence or spirit element became intelligences after the spirits were born as individual entities. Use of this name designates both the primal element from which the spirit offspring were created and also their inherited capacity to grow in grace . . .” (387). This view seems to consider intelligence, or pure element, as collective and not individual in its nature, and is consistent with the views expressed by President Penrose. If this is true, then we have not always existed as individual entities, but only as a collective something...

http://rsc.byu.edu/a...y-saint-thought

Edited April 28, 2012 by inquiringmind

[blackstrap]

In then end,our thoughts would be better utilized to search out ways to serve and be stewards over the "intelligences" we find ourselves surrounded by.

[mfbukowski]

If you had no idea what he was talking about, weren't you baffled?

I don't want to argue with you about stupid stuff. It's a misunderstanding.

The John Taylor quote bears out, imo, what I said earlier about multiple eternities.

Talk about "first causes" does not make sense and hasn't since Hume showed the flaw in that argument in the 18th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

[David T]

Joseph Smith taught that spirits were never created or made (Abraham 3; KFD; various other sermons). After his death several church leaders began to teach that spirits were created by a sexual union of exalted beings from spirit matter. BH Roberts at the end of the 19th century was reading JS and seeing the tension invented the tripartite model, where sensient beings called "intelligences" or "intelligencies" recieved a spirit body before mortality by some sort of spirit birth. Most general authorities disregarded his ideas, but he got some traction with Widtsoe and they were later popularized by Truman Madsen. See here.

I don't think enough saw this above post, and the links associated with it. I highly recommend checking it out.

[mfbukowski]

In the PoGP there appears to be a hiarchy of intelligence levels with Christ(God/?) at the top. I have a problem with God taking a bunch of primorial intelligence soup and stuffing it into a spirit body with different amounts in each body.I am happier with an eternally existing amount of intelligence that was given a form in which to dwell.

No more soup for you!

Edited April 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[inquiringmind]

I don't want to argue with you about stupid stuff. It's a misunderstanding.

The John Taylor quote bears out, imo, what I said earlier about multiple eternities.

I think it bears that out too, which is why I was confused when you said that you "frankly" had "no idea" what he was talking about.

Talk about "first causes" does not make sense and hasn't since Hume showed the flaw in that argument in the 18th century.

http://en.wikipedia....ogical_argument

Talk of an (ontologically) First Cause still makes sense to me.

(And it made sense to Lehi, who said "...if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.")

A version of the cosmological argument could be stated as follows:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
   
2. A causal loop cannot exist.
   
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
   
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.
   

According to the argument, the existence of the Universe requires an explanation, and the creation of the Universe by a First Cause, generally assumed to be God, is that explanation

One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require a cause. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.¹³ A brief review of the first premise in both arguments above, however, shows that the first cause is exempt precisely because it did not begin to exist or because it is not contingent or finite. Thus claiming that there is special pleading on the part of the first cause essentially amounts to a rejection of the formulation of either of the first premises above. The problem with arguing for the First Cause's exemption is that it raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt.¹⁴Secondly, the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori. However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent.¹⁵ Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.¹³ Christian apologist Timothy McCabe has argued that the premise of causality rests on the law of identity: if things begin uncaused, then having nothing and adding nothing to it, something results, which is equivalent to the claim that 0 + 0 > 0, or that zero is not zero.16

This is found on the link you provided, and I fail to see how Hume proved anything.

Edited April 28, 2012 by inquiringmind

[mfbukowski]

This is found on the link you provided, and I fail to see how Hume proved anything.

McCabe's point assumes from the beginning that there was "nothing"- I cannot even imagine non-existence- can you? No dark- no light, no things, no thoughts, no one observing what is not there. We can't even imagine it.

If there was never "nothing" - "0" he has no case. Zero is a mathematical concept which enables computation- it doesn't nor has it ever "existed". It is not a thing. It is not even no-thing- because that implies the negation of "things" which is a concept- ie something.

It's just all jibberish- that's my point.

The very idea of "zero" is an idea.

Hume:

http://plato.stanfor...e/#NecConDefCau

Incidentally your comment that perhaps the person who is perhaps the most universally accepted as the most important philosopher to ever write in English didn't "provide anything", is a little....... mistaken.

His arguments against causation are still debated 300 years later. First Cause may make sense to you, but I think you should be aware that you have an uphill battle on that one against anyone who has not attended philosophy courses taught by Christian Scholastic professors.

Edited April 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[inquiringmind]

I cannot even imagine non-existence- can you?

Can you imagine consciously existing forever before you were born as a spirit child of Heavenly Father?

Did anything change when you were given a spirit body?

Are you any different now that you have a mortal body?

Will you be any different when you get your resurrected body (and will that change be permanent)?

If time had no beginning, how long did it take for you to get where you are?

And how would you answer these questions (which seem to have been raised by General Authorities)?

There were at least six objections and questions raised regarding what Nelson and Elder Roberts had written, and Elder Roberts summarized them as follows. One, “The pre-existence of the spirit of man is now extended back beyond the ‘beginning’that is so often” taught in the scriptures, and includes “the doctrine that we are co-eternal with the Father.” Two, why are we “so far behind in the order of eternal progression, if . . . we . . . started from the same plane of intelligence as he did?” Three, “the Manual doctrine of immortality must lead to the idea that the number of intelligences that could eventually become . . . human beings, must be limited, that is, all that can ever come into existence as human beings already exist, and have always existed, and when they have all concluded . . . to progress by obeying law, then there will be an end to creation; to the works (new works) of God.” It could have been added that you could take the position that there would always be intelligence because they were infinite in number; therefore, some would never have the opportunity to be begotten spiritually and eventually become like their Heavenly Father. Four, “‘I don’t know,’ says the objector, ‘how the fact that our mortal bodies, which most certainly had a beginning as bodies, will be made immortal and have no end as bodies, can be made to harmonize with [the] axiom,’ that anything that has a beginning must have an end.” Five, “If an individual cannot be produced without the union of two other separate individuals, I do not see how we can deny the beginning of the begotten individual.” And six, “It is tentatively suggested as a counter theory … ‘that the life of the parent is imparted to the offspring, and that while it is still a part of the same life or spirit of the parent, and as such did not have a beginning at the time of birth, yet as a separate individual it did have a beginning at the time of birth or conception.’ This is thought to be a solution of spirit existence ‘both reasonable, and more in accordance with the apparent, plain meaning of many passages both of ancient and modern scripture’” (“Immortality of Man” 403–05).

http://rsc.byu.edu/a...y-saint-thought

Edited April 28, 2012 by inquiringmind

[mfbukowski]

And how would you answer these questions (which seem to have been raised by General Authorities)?

Is this addressed to anyone in particular?

Edit: My answer would be that the questions themselves are confused and unclear because the terms are not defined fully.

Edited April 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[altersteve]

Can you imagine consciously existing forever before you were born as a spirit child of Heavenly Father?

It's not something we can comprehend, so my answer is no.

[inquiringmind]

It's not something we can comprehend, so my answer is no.

But if time always existed, and you always existed, you were forever getting where you are now.

How did you get here?

Why aren't you still back in that infinity of time before you had a Heavenly Father?

An atheist could ask much the same question about how God got to the point of creation, but if you believe in a dipolar God (who's both temporal and atemporal) who creates time, there was no infinity of time before creation.

This is only a problem if you believe time and space are eternal and uncreated, and it's a bigger problem if you believe that you are.

If you existed for an infinite amount of time before you became Heavenly Father's spirit child, and you were aware of that passage of time, your mind must have been infinite, but now you can't even conceive of infinity.

Edited April 28, 2012 by inquiringmind

[altersteve]

But if time always existed, and you always existed, you were forever getting where you are now.

How did you get here?

Why aren't you still back in that infinity of time before you had a Heavenly Father?

An atheist could ask much the same question about how God got to the point of creation, but if you believe in a dipolar God (who's both temporal and atemporal) who creates time, there was no infinity of time before creation.

(This is only a problem if you believe time and space are eternal and uncreated.)

I don't know. Only God can know the answer, but I don't believe we currently have the ability to comprehend it. All I know is that we have always existed in some form, and I'm content with simply saying "I have no idea" when asked how or why.

Also, I don't believe there was ever a time when God was not my Heavenly Father.

Edited April 28, 2012 by altersteve