Lds Doctrine Vs. Intelligent Design

[BCSpace]

I was interested in this line of thinking in the other ID thread but the starter finally narrowed his OP in the 34th post. So if you'd like to continue this line of reasoning, I'm interested in seeing what else there is of it as well as any other comparisons.

I can see an interesting point there.

We can break it up into human body and the universe:

If God has a human body of "flesh and bones", then he didn't design the human body.

why don't you prove, via logic, that "if God has a human body of 'flesh and bones', then he didn't design the human body." It is not at all obvious to me that such is necessarily the case. "If I have a shirt, then I didn't design the shirt." Doesn't seem to follow.

Something along the lines of God having a Father might do it.

And....

But why don't you prove, via logic, that "if God has a human body of 'flesh and bones', then he didn't design the human body."

The point is not to show it "via logic" alone but through the fact that in Mormonism God didn't always had a body and he acquired his existence as a God with a body. God is NOT the designer of the plan, either, since he is following something that has been going on forever. God didn't design the body and it is the same with the conditions that make this type of body possible to maintain. Not only do you have to have a body but the conditions that sustain that body (i.e. laws and physical conditions).

It is not at all obvious to me that such is necessarily the case. "If I have a shirt, then I didn't design the shirt." Doesn't seem to follow.

I agree that doesn't follow. The thing is....that the body we have is no one's design since bodies have been going on through eternity.

What BCSpace said is right on the point, also. If Heavenly Father (ours) has a father, then he has a body like his son (that is, like our Heavenly Father). The point is that the human form in Mormonism, even male and female, are not the design of someone in Mormonism but constants throughout eternity itself.

[altersteve]

How do we know God didn't design His own body?

[TAO]

alter, I think Jesus didn't design his own body... did not Father do that, through Jesus Christ? I mean... thought of, not physically created. In any case, it is not known.

Edited July 5, 2011 by TAO

[Doctor Ninja]

Fist of all, I am glad you aren't as angry as Log was in this thread. I loved the discussion, but didn't even want to get involved.

It seems everyone is taken a free pass on speculation so don't call the mod on me. It could be possible that God is "One" of the Designers of the body. The concept was already in place, but maybe He decided to add special features. Car companies do this, even with the concept of the car in place.

I thought of this because the resurrected animals in Revelations seem to be completely different than anything that we know of. It seemed to me that God has the liberty to create whatever He wants even though the concept has always been there.

[altersteve]

alter, I think Jesus didn't design his own body... did not Father do that, through Jesus Christ? I mean... thought of, not physically created. In any case, it is not known.

I know Jesus didn't design His own body. I didn't mean that. I meant, how do we know the Father did not design His own body before He obtained it?

[Rivers]

Fist of all, I am glad you aren't as angry as Log was in this thread. I loved the discussion, but didn't even want to get involved.

It seems everyone is taken a free pass on speculation so don't call the mod on me. It could be possible that God is "One" of the Designers of the body. The concept was already in place, but maybe He decided to add special features. Car companies do this, even with the concept of the car in place.

I thought of this because the resurrected animals in Revelations seem to be completely different than anything that we know of. It seemed to me that God has the liberty to create whatever He wants even though the concept has always been there.

If I were God, I would let natural selection take its course and see what nature comes up. It would be a fascinating thing to see.

[TAO]

I know Jesus didn't design His own body. I didn't mean that. I meant, how do we know the Father did not design His own body before He obtained it?

That's unknown... so far... we do not know much about it =). It is up to you to ask and find out your answer from him =).

It's something between him and you.

=)

Best Wishes,

TAO

[altersteve]

That's unknown... so far... we do not know much about it =). It is up to you to ask and find out your answer from him =).

It's something between him and you.

=)

Best Wishes,

TAO

Oh, I know. I was just speculating.

[DavidC]

Wouldn't it be clearer to say it differently, that

if God designed the human body, then he didn't already have a human body at the time he designed it.

[Rivers]

Wouldn't it be clearer to say it differently, that

if God designed the human body, then he didn't already have a human body at the time he designed it.

That's a good way of putting it. But, if the doctrine of an infinite regression of Gods is true, then our God the Father couldn't have possibly designed it.

[elguanteloko]

How do we know God didn't design His own body?

did you design Heavenly Father's body? You didn't and if our God is the product of a process like the one we are in right now then it is quite reasonable to think he didn't design his father's body.

[elguanteloko]

That's a good way of putting it. But, if the doctrine of an infinite regression of Gods is true, then our God the Father couldn't have possibly designed it.

indeed, neither the body nor the conditions which can sustain that body, which is also quite interesting. Someone could say that Gods are being creative in making small, non-substantial changes to the bodies and the conditions in each universe to support those bodies... but that sounds like quite an ad hoc to me.

[zerinus]

did you design Heavenly Father's body? You didn't and if our God is the product of a process like the one we are in right now then it is quite reasonable to think he didn't design his father's body.

But Mormonism doesn't teach that it was the product of chance either; hence it is not incompatible with Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design stands at the other end of the spectrum from creation by chance. Infinite regression of Gods is not equivalent to creation by chance, hence it is not incompatible with Intelligent Design.

[Log]

Does Mormonism necessarily teach a beginningless chain of Gods? Does Mormonism teach that there is not a Most High God?

Does the ability to rationally distinguish chance events from purposeful actions render Mormonism false?

[BCSpace]

First of all, I am glad you aren't as angry as Log was in this thread. I loved the discussion, but didn't even want to get involved.

If you are referring to me, I'm not angry at all. And I don't mind at all if the discussion diverages pleasantly onto any (or multiple any) spiritual or intellectual trail.

That's a good way of putting it. But, if the doctrine of an infinite regression of Gods is true, then our God the Father couldn't have possibly designed it.

It still could have been intelligently designed. But, especially since evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine, I postulate the possibility that the first Gods may have come up through evolution and then various experiences, akin to tower of Babel experiences of liftting themselves up by the bootstraps, and now they have an easier and more efficient pathway to Theosis.

So in this case, creation in the image of the Gods could simply refer to the fact that they establish worlds with conditions such that homo sapiens evolve naturally on them.

To the answer of the question of a regression of Gods being LDS doctrine, I say, yes it is official doctrine though it may be more implied than directly stated.

Edited July 5, 2011 by BCSpace

[zerinus]

Does Mormonism necessarily teach a beginningless chain of Gods? Does Mormonism teach that there is not a Most High God?

Does the ability to rationally distinguish chance events from purposeful actions render Mormonism false?

Are you addressing these questions to me?

[Log]

To the answer of the question of a regression of Gods being LDS doctrine, I say, yes it is official doctrine though it may be more implied than directly stated.

Which is another way of saying it isn't official doctrine at all. If we were to ask President Monson "Is there a Most High God?" what would he answer?

[Log]

Are you addressing these questions to me?

Not really; these questions are really the topic of the thread, it seems.

[BCSpace]

But Mormonism doesn't teach that it was the product of chance either; hence it is not incompatible with Intelligent Design

And that is partly why Evolution is not in conflict with LDS doctrine either. Natural selection is intrinsically not a random process. And what science calls random today may not be random tomorrow as we discover the operating principles behind something that is 'random'.

Most religious antiEvolutionists, who typically don't understand what Evolution Theory is or what is states, are not really arguing against Evolution at all, but rather someone else's (usually an atheist) conclusion about Evolution. Atheistic conclusions about Evolution are not scientific as Evolution does not address or require the nonexistence of God nor does it preclude God creating man in His own image.

[Doctor Ninja]

If you are referring to me, I'm not angry at all. And I don't mind at all if the discussion diverages pleasantly onto any (or multiple any) spiritual or intellectual trail.

I had no reference to you.

[BCSpace]

Which is another way of saying it isn't official doctrine at all.

Not at all; if God the Father was once a mortal man, then he must have a Father as well. And here is another reason why evolution fits LDS doctrine so well. Evolution does not teach that one species begets another, it teach that all living things are born after their own kind.

If we were to ask President Monson "Is there a Most High God?" what would he answer?

Yet there are other real and divine Gods with which we have nothing to do according to LDS doctrine. It just means that our Most High God is the one we ultimately deal with. And considering the LDS hierarchy of families, it makes sense that our Grandfather God is not responsible or answerable for us.

[Log]

Not at all; if God the Father was once a mortal man, then he must have a Father as well.

How does that follow? What assumptions are folded into that statement?

And here is another reason why evolution fits LDS doctrine so well. Evolution does not teach that one species begets another, it teach that all living things are born after their own kind.

I'm not here to say anything about the miraculous creative powers of sheer dumb luck. Some people believe in the darnedest things.

Yet there are other real and divine Gods with which we have nothing to do according to LDS doctrine. It just means that our Most High God is the one we ultimately deal with.

The scriptures do not qualify the appellation "Most High God." You have.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Log

[BCSpace]

Not at all; if God the Father was once a mortal man, then he must have a Father as well.

How does that follow? What assumptions are folded into that statement?

None other than those which are LDS doctrine such as like produces like.

And here is another reason why evolution fits LDS doctrine so well. Evolution does not teach that one species begets another, it teach that all living things are born after their own kind.

I'm not here to say anything about the miraculous creative powers of sheer dumb luck. Some people believe in the darnedest things.

Perhaps you accept more randomness in the universe than I do?

Yet there are other real and divine Gods with which we have nothing to do according to LDS doctrine. It just means that our Most High God is the one we ultimately deal with.

The scriptures do not qualify the appellation "Most High God." You have.

Alma 26:14, to which you referred in the other thread, is specifically about Jesus Christ and not the Father and that is backed up by official doctrine in the manual.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Fist of all, I am glad you aren't as angry as Log was in this thread. I loved the discussion, but didn't even want to get involved.

It seems everyone is taken a free pass on speculation so don't call the mod on me. It could be possible that God is "One" of the Designers of the body. The concept was already in place, but maybe He decided to add special features. Car companies do this, even with the concept of the car in place.

I thought of this because the resurrected animals in Revelations seem to be completely different than anything that we know of. It seemed to me that God has the liberty to create whatever He wants even though the concept has always been there.

I'm comfortable knowing that I am in the image of God. We both have two legs, two arms, two hands, and one head. My parents pro-CREATED me. In part, they designed me as I have inherited many of their attributes. But God does not have blood coursing through his veins as we do. I think God designed the immune system, blood system, and hormonal system, etc. to be compatible with this earth. But there was no "original" designer of our form.

[Doctor Ninja]

I'm comfortable knowing that I am in the image of God. We both have two legs, two arms, two hands, and one head. My parents pro-CREATED me. In part, they designed me as I have inherited many of their attributes. But God does not have blood coursing through his veins as we do. I think God designed the immune system, blood system, and hormonal system, etc. to be compatible with this earth. But there was no "original" designer of our form.

Excellent points!