Infinite Regress of Gods

[ChristKnight]

Hi all,

I was reading the FAIR wiki article on "Nature of God/Infinite regress of Gods", and am trying to understand the section that describes the stance of "God the Father did not have a divine Father".

I can see how if one believes that God the Father had a mortal experience, as Joseph Smith taught, it was just like Jesus' experience, in that He remained divine while He was on an earth. The issue I'm trying to understand is, why does such a belief mean that the Father did not have a divine Father? If one believes that the Father's mortal experience was just like Jesus' experience, did not/does not Jesus have a Father?

From what I remember, Blake Ostler, in his book "Of God and Gods" seems to believe that the correct understanding of Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse and Sermon in the Grove (right?) is that the Father is the Head God of all the gods, and thus there is no infinite regress of Gods. I'm just trying to understand how one can come to this conclusion if one believes that the Father's mortal experience was like the Son's (guess I need to pull that book back out ).

[thesometimesaint]

ChristKnight:

Good morning.

I believe it would be more accurate to say that the King Follett Discourse has yet to be accept by the Church. So All such arguments will be speculative at best, and assumptions based of those speculations at worst.

My personal opinion is that; So IF there are other Gods, and that is a VERY BIG IF, our God is still the only God we have anything to do with.

[TAO]

Yes SometimesSaint is correct... when we venture into those questions, we go into speculation. In some topics, I'll talk about this... but I try to make sure that I put a note that it is speculation on my part when I do so.

So yes, it is unknown currently whether the Father had a Father or not.

Either way, if he did or did not, it doesn't effect whom we worship.

[NauvooSaint]

I don't believe in plurality of gods (unless we speak of the godhead's sameness/seperateness), since I'm traditional RLDS.

To me it seems there are too many contradictions in the LDS theology to explain these things. I understand there have been statements given by different LDS/Mormon leaders over the years in relation to God & Eternal Progression. Was God always divine...did he progress to godhood, etc. Some state it as truth, while others declare such false. It's my understanding the LDS/Mormon viewpoint (although it may not be official belief), that what seperates Jesus Christ from other spirit children is that he was spiritually & physically begotten by God, the Father & also is the Firstborn of his children. If the universal plan has been through the eons of eternity for gods to be first spiritually & then physically begotten (living a mortal life) & then becoming exalted to godhood,...why was God, the Father & Jesus Christ different in that formula? It would seem they got a special pass/abilities vs. everyone else in that thinking. The scriptures indicate that Jesus Christ was both divine & mortal when He was born into the world. If in LDS belief Jesus's earthly body was literally begotten by God, the Father through Mary, then yes...God was divine & Jesus wasn't begotten during God, the Father's mortal life. This would mean God, the Father had no mortal children during his mortal life. Why would this be different in our case with our having earthly children? Doesn't sound like any polygamy going on with God. Should we believe Jesus needed exaltation to reach the status of God? I don't think so.

On the other hand, if we accept what Brigham Young taught in connection with Adam/God physically begetting his children in JofD, then Jesus would have been required to live two mortal lives. One natural life with his mortal father (not yet exalted to godhood) & a second life as the divine/mortal for our sakes to carry out the atonement. Two questions I have asked LDS/Mormons on different occassions has been: Who was sacrificed to atone the sins of God, the Father, while he was in mortal life? Who will you sacrifice to atone the sins of your world when you become exalted to godhood? If God, the Father's mortal life was divine/mortal like Jesus Christ....perhaps he was the sacrafice for the atonement of his father's world. Great Grandfather God. This certainly belittles the eternal atonement of the Savior & Redeemer. It makes Christ's atonement simply one of many through the eons of eternity & limited in scope & effectiveness. This all just doesn't fit the scriptures in my opinion. I choose to believe in the all powerful, all knowing, eternal God of all...not just another face in the crowd of exalted men or heavenly fathers/mothers.

Regards,

NauvooSaint

[Lightbearer]

I can see how if one believes that God the Father had a mortal experience, as Joseph Smith taught, it was just like Jesus' experience, in that He remained divine while He was on an earth. The issue I'm trying to understand is, why does such a belief mean that the Father did not have a divine Father? If one believes that the Father's mortal experience was just like Jesus' experience, did not/does not Jesus have a Father?

From what I remember, Blake Ostler, in his book "Of God and Gods" seems to believe that the correct understanding of Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse and Sermon in the Grove (right?) is that the Father is the Head God of all the gods, and thus there is no infinite regress of Gods. I'm just trying to understand how one can come to this conclusion if one believes that the Father's mortal experience was like the Son's (guess I need to pull that book back out ).

With all due respect to Blake Ostler and any others, they are not prophets, seers, and revelators. As I have always understood Mormonism since my youth, God the Father had a father, and He had a Father, there never was a time when there was no God, or when Gods, and men will cease to be, both God, angels and men are of the same species and we are a race of Gods. It is as simple as that and anyone who reads the KFD and the Sermon in the Grove can tell that is what Joseph was trying to teach. That is why the apostates in Nauvoo thirsted for his blood, the same reason the Jews thirsted for the blood of Christ, He being a man made himself a god... It is the mystery of godliness, but it is as simple that a primary child could understand it. Although modern day philosophers try to change it or corrupt it just as it was corrupted in the past, the truth cannot be destroyed no matter how much Satan tries, either wittingly or unwittingly to deny our heritage and cheapen the plan of salvation and exaltation.

I do not see the "big deal" why some members of the Church try to backpeddle on this, it is the most beautiful and pure of doctrines of the Gospel, in fact the Prophet said that it "tasted good" meaning it shows the love of God for His own children. We are the family of God and it is His will that we attain the highest of His blessings which is the fullness of the Father. It is also the reason that the atonement of Christ was absolutely essential, it had to be infinite and eternal because that is the type of beings we are, we had to become pure and spottless, and the only way we could is through the blood of Christ. The following teaches this plainly:

(D&C 93:1-30) "VERILY, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am; And that I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world; And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one

[thesometimesaint]

Lightbearer:

I don't see any backpedaling. I put the KFD in the same realm as the Proclamation on the Family. There is accurate portrayals of LDS belief in it. But definitely a part that we need further light and truth on it before I would be comfortable with including it in our doctrine.

[ChristKnight]

With all due respect to Blake Ostler and any others, they are not prophets, seers, and revelators. As I have always understood Mormonism since my youth, God the Father had a father, and He had a Father, there never was a time when there was no God, or when Gods, and men will cease to be, both God, angels and men are of the same species and we are a race of Gods.

Thanks, that agrees with the FAIR wiki article when it says that the "infinite regress of Gods" view is more prevalent.

Do you find any merit in the "uncaused cause" view of Aristotle and Aquinas?

[ChristKnight]

ChristKnight:

Good morning.

I believe it would be more accurate to say that the King Follett Discourse has yet to be accept by the Church. So All such arguments will be speculative at best, and assumptions based of those speculations at worst.

My personal opinion is that; So IF there are other Gods, and that is a VERY BIG IF, our God is still the only God we have anything to do with.

Thanks. I completely understand that the KFD is not on the level of canonized scripture. Does the KFD being published in the Ensign mean that it is at least...supported (not sure of the right word here)?

[erichard]

With all due respect to Blake Ostler and any others, they are not prophets, seers, and revelators. ....

Hi,

I liked your defense of this doctrine that the Father has a Father before him, etc.

But wait, you are not an ordained prophet, seer or revelator for the church either. Are you?

But cannot any man, or even any woman, if they live the gospel and prepare themselves, receive revelations for themselves, even mysteries?

We should never forget D&C 11:25 "Deny not the spirit of revelation, nor the spirit of prophecy, for wo unto him that denieth these things;"

If someone besides a church leader claims revelation for their family or for some other organization, should we not be very careful before denying it?

Since Jesus of Nazareth spoken of in the Bible was a finite being, unless one buys into the creeds (which were added to the Bible understanding in defiance of Revelations 22:18) there is no reason to not believe "his father" is not also a finite being. Or why use the term Father?

And how could any finite being, no matter how powerful and progressed, create and govern an infinite universe? No, "God" has to be infinite.

And the only way God can be infinite, based on the revelations given to the Prophet Joseph, is if God is an infinite family chain of finite Fathers who were once Sons. How could it be any other way?

I do agree that more revelation is needed on the matter. And it is promised. (D&C 121:26-32) But since Joseph and Brigham and others taught it, I am not going to deny it. I do not want to deny the spirit of revelation, so I will stay on the safe side.

Richard

[ChristKnight]

bump

[SilverKnight]

The KFD is of untold importance to LDS theology, and its foundations were laid in the First Vision.

If God is an exalted human then it is logical speculate he has a Father, etc.

This does indeed result in an infinite regress.

But any cosmology you come up with also results in an infinite regress.

The uncreated Christian God must still deal with the problem of an infinite past, as must the secular Big Bang theory.

Nobody is exempt from the philosophical tangle of infinite regress.

[Nofear]

And how could any finite being, no matter how powerful and progressed, create and govern an infinite universe? No, "God" has to be infinite.

Two points:

• We don't know whether or not our universe is infinitely vast -- though I rather suspect it is.
• We don't know how much of our universe God organized -- only that he has, is, and will create/organize a lot -- more than we can really count.

The KFD is of untold importance to LDS theology, and its foundations were laid in the First Vision.

If God is an exalted human then it is logical speculate he has a Father, etc.

This does indeed result in an infinite regress.

While it is logically consistent to form an infinite regress, given our ignorance about the universe as a whole and divinity, it is not necessary to extrapolate that to an infinite regression. It is still conceptually allowed within the framework of Mormonism to have a finite regress.

But any cosmology you come up with also results in an infinite regress.

The uncreated Christian God must still deal with the problem of an infinite past, as must the secular Big Bang theory.

Nobody is exempt from the philosophical tangle of infinite regress.

Suppose you adopt an interpretation of the big bang model where the universe started some 13.7 billion years ago, how would this also result with problems with an infinite past? I'm not sure I follow your statement and need clarification.

[SilverKnight]

While it is logically consistent to form an infinite regress, given our ignorance about the universe as a whole and divinity, it is not necessary to extrapolate that to an infinite regression. It is still conceptually allowed within the framework of Mormonism to have a finite regress.

I suppose so.

But the whole idea of eternal progression and exalted humans points in the opposite direction.

Suppose you adopt an interpretation of the big bang model where the universe started some 13.7 billion years ago, how would this also result with problems with an infinite past? I'm not sure I follow your statement and need clarification.

Though theoretical physics cannot describe what they were like, there must have been conditions prior to the big bang.

To claim that time did not exist prior to the big bang seems like a paradox or logical absurdity.

[todd520]

We must remember that the KFD is an amalgamation of audience notes, so one must be very careful in using it to define new doctrine on the turn of a phrase.

In contrast "The Family" proclamation was clearly reviewed and published by the Prophet and the apostles. It would be appropriate to dig deeper into the meanings within the wording.

I believe if there was a revelation of infinite regression of Gods, it would be significant and thus have been communicated explicitly and repeatedly by Joseph Smith.

Instead what I've seen is a powerful doctrine simply inferred from speech notes and logical deduction.

I'm OK with deduction but we should be clear that is the sources, and not revelation

[Jason]

I can see how if one believes that God the Father had a mortal experience, as Joseph Smith taught, it was just like Jesus' experience, in that He remained divine while He was on an earth. The issue I'm trying to understand is, why does such a belief mean that the Father did not have a divine Father? If one believes that the Father's mortal experience was just like Jesus' experience, did not/does not Jesus have a Father?

Jesus did not have a mortal father - his father was divine.

If the Father's experience was exactly like Jesus' then He didn't have a mortal father either - because His father was divine.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The KFD is of untold importance to LDS theology, and its foundations were laid in the First Vision.

Which version?

[BCSpace]

If one believes that the Father's mortal experience was just like Jesus' experience, did not/does not Jesus have a Father?

I think the notion of God the Father having been like Jesus in mortality almost leads one to also have to address an infinite regress of Christ's. Since Theosis is the only way described in the scriptures as to how Gods are made, I think that God the Father was a regular (possibily even of black skin ) sinner in mortality is far more likely.

As for the infinite regress of Gods, I like to think that at one point there were no Gods at all. That smaller infinities can fit into larger infinites makes it possible for there to have always been a God or Gods and yet also a point such as I have described. I like to postulate that the first Gods uplifted themselves and now that it is known what it takes, they have devised a far more efficient and effective way to do it.

Of course that might have happened so far back in the distant past that it looks like an infinite regression.

But cannot any man, or even any woman, if they live the gospel and prepare themselves, receive revelations for themselves, even mysteries?

We should never forget D&C 11:25 "Deny not the spirit of revelation, nor the spirit of prophecy, for wo unto him that denieth these things;"

If someone besides a church leader claims revelation for their family or for some other organization, should we not be very careful before denying it?

Sure. But I think we have to be very careful that others don't mistake it for the official doctrine of the Church before the Church decides it is.

[SilverKnight]

Which version?

The canonized 1838 version.

The version Joseph Smith himself gave when asked to recount the theophany.

You may choose to believe Joseph Smith was embellishing the experience or outright lying about it, but the 1838 account is his official recorded testimony of the event.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The canonized 1838 version.

The version Joseph Smith himself gave when asked to recount the theophany.

You may choose to believe Joseph Smith was embellishing the experience or outright lying about it, but the 1838 account is his official recorded testimony of the event.

Gotcha.

[Nofear]

I suppose so.

But the whole idea of eternal progression and exalted humans points in the opposite direction.

That is an aesthetic preference. I personally am inclined more to think along the lines that BCSpace proposed.

Though theoretical physics cannot describe what they were like, there must have been conditions prior to the big bang.

To claim that time did not exist prior to the big bang seems like a paradox or logical absurdity.

You are right that there would have to be initial conditions. The big bang model, however, doesn't go back that far and is not about the beginning of everything. See: http://www.talkorigi...#misconceptions

Nevertheless, given the starting point of the big bang (irrespective of how long the universe has been around), the conditions are in no way compatible with a temporally and spatially extant being -- such as any resurrected being must be. This at a finite point in the past. Consequently, BCSpace's approach* seems the more logical one. But, it is far far from the paradigm most Mormons have adopted or even considered.

* That there is a regress of gods but that at some point entities approached divinity in a path different (and much less efficiently) than the path offered by the Plan of Salvation.

[BCSpace]

Consequently, BCSpace's approach* seems the more logical one. But, it is far far from the paradigm most Mormons have adopted or even considered.

While I certainly don't think my explaination must be the right one, I do think that most Mormons ought to do what the Church teaches which is to educate themselves about the sciences (among other things). And while the Church doesn't explicitly (but it may implicitly) teach this next, I think it critically important to modify our thinking as best we can to fit these truths which the Church wants us to find in ways that don't conflict with doctrine.

* That there is a regress of gods but that at some point entities approached divinity in a path different (and much less efficiently) than the path offered by the Plan of Salvation.

One thing that attracts me to this line of reasoning is that it allows for matter and intelligence to continue to have always existed in the past without the need for a God or Gods as the scriptures seem to imply. They are simply unorganized and perhaps because of physical properties (gravity etc.), they tend to organize themselves to a point where they become self-organizing. And from thence came the original Gods according to my postulation.

So while I may have addressed the infinite regression of Gods, I have not addressed the infinite regression of intelligence (and perhaps matter as well), which the scriptures say cannot be created or made (D&C 93:29).

I have also implied that the Gods are subject to whatever the overarching laws of the universe(s) may be, though I can conceive of Gods who have mastered/gained control of them. But this again begs the question of whence came these laws and even this matter and intelligence thart cannot be created or made. And thus is proven SilverKnight's statement that "Nobody is exempt from the philosophical tangle of infinite regress".

[ELF1024]

Hi all,

I was reading the FAIR wiki article on "Nature of God/Infinite regress of Gods", and am trying to understand the section that describes the stance of "God the Father did not have a divine Father".

I can see how if one believes that God the Father had a mortal experience, as Joseph Smith taught, it was just like Jesus' experience, in that He remained divine while He was on an earth. The issue I'm trying to understand is, why does such a belief mean that the Father did not have a divine Father? If one believes that the Father's mortal experience was just like Jesus' experience, did not/does not Jesus have a Father?

From what I remember, Blake Ostler, in his book "Of God and Gods" seems to believe that the correct understanding of Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse and Sermon in the Grove (right?) is that the Father is the Head God of all the gods, and thus there is no infinite regress of Gods. I'm just trying to understand how one can come to this conclusion if one believes that the Father's mortal experience was like the Son's (guess I need to pull that book back out ).

"Turtles all the way down"

[mfbukowski]

Thanks, that agrees with the FAIR wiki article when it says that the "infinite regress of Gods" view is more prevalent.

Do you find any merit in the "uncaused cause" view of Aristotle and Aquinas?

Howdy CK!

Long time no chat!

I just found this thread and it appears no one has yet addressed your question about the "uncaused cause".

I have found that a few LDS accept this as a valid argument, but I think they are mistaken in not realizing that it incorporates a view of God which we should consider (pardon the expression ) "apostate" since Aquinas was clearly strongly influenced by Neoplatonism.

To my way of thinking, Hume effectively put the notion of the "uncaused cause" to rest hundreds of years ago, and I am not aware of anyone who has successfully challenged his view except some Scholastic philosophers whose conclusions are largely discounted outside of Scholastic philosophy.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-David-Hume-Philosopher.htm

It appears that, in single instances of the operation of bodies, we never can, by our utmost scrutiny, discover any thing but one event following another, without being able to comprehend any force or power by which the cause operates, or any connexion between it and its supposed effect. The same difficulty occurs in contemplating the operations of mind on body- where we observe the motion of the latter to follow upon the volition of the former, but are not able to observe or conceive the tie which binds together the motion and volition, or the energy by which the mind produces this effect. The authority of the will over its own faculties and ideas is not a whit more comprehensible: So that, upon the whole, there appears not, throughout all nature, any one instance of connexion which is conceivable by us. All events seem entirely loose and separate. One event follows another; but we never can observe any tie between them. They seemed conjoined, but never connected. And as we can have no idea of any thing which never appeared to our outward sense or inward sentiment, the necessary conclusion seems to be that we have no idea of connexion or force at all, and that these words are absolutely without meaning, when employed either in philosophical reasonings or common life. (David Hume, 1737)

The point is that there is never a logically necessary cause of anything, and that it is impossible to define a single "cause" for any single effect from a logical perspective, except of course by observation and experience- not logic.

So if I drop a pebble into a pond which "causes" ripples- what is the "cause" of those ripples? Was it the pebble, or was it me dropping the pebble? Was the "cause" the gravity which pulled the pebble down to the surface of the pond? Was the "cause" somehow my intention to drop the pebble? What was the cause of the intention? The professor who stated the problem? And what was my cause? Was my cause my parents, my grandparents or great grandparents? Or was the cause the pebble itself- but what caused the pebble- etc etc

So what was the ultimate "cause" of the ripples?? The answer will always be "it depends on how you look at it".

There is no logically necessary cause which can be defined for anything. There may be a high degree of correlation, but correlation is observation and is not logically necessary. So on this view, the universe does not need a "cause" to start it- and certainly any implied cause (the big bang, etc) is not logically necessary.

So it cannot be said that the existence of God can be logically proven by causation.

[Ambrose]

To my way of thinking, Hume effectively put the notion of the "uncaused cause" to rest hundreds of years ago, and I am not aware of anyone who has successfully challenged his view except some Scholastic philosophers whose conclusions are largely discounted outside of Scholastic philosophy.

Hume denies the epistemological model of Aristotle. Most moderns would also like to dispense with much of Aristotle's epistemology. Popularity isn't much of a guide here. Simply because neo-Scholastics are discounted by many doesn't mean much.

The real trouble that I have with Hume is that much of his argumentation hinges on "common items" that are themselves not logically proven (e.g. non-contradiction, identity of being, &c.). If Hume's argument is that we cannot have any certainty regarding causality because it is not logically proven (or at least not a priori), then his whole argument fails for there cannot be an a priori demonstration of the principle of non-Contradiction. We only know non-Contradiction by experience, and can only defend it by an argument from the impossible.

[mfbukowski]

Hume denies the epistemological model of Aristotle. Most moderns would also like to dispense with much of Aristotle's epistemology. Popularity isn't much of a guide here. Simply because neo-Scholastics are discounted by many doesn't mean much.

The real trouble that I have with Hume is that much of his argumentation hinges on "common items" that are themselves not logically proven (e.g. non-contradiction, identity of being, &c.). If Hume's argument is that we cannot have any certainty regarding causality because it is not logically proven (or at least not a priori), then his whole argument fails for there cannot be an a priori demonstration of the principle of non-Contradiction. We only know non-Contradiction by experience, and can only defend it by an argument from the impossible.

But your argument of course implies that Aquinas was wrong anyway, certainly if even non-contradiction is based on experience, so maybe you're shooting yourself in the foot.

But that might be an interesting argument to see how non-contradiction is based on experience. If anything, I would think that would help the Mormon point of view which makes direct experience a primary avenue for obtaining knowledge.

Do you mean somehow along the lines of the Kantian synthetic a priori?