My Biggest Stumbling Block

[ldsfaqs]

I'm still investigationg the Mormon Church, and I went to sacrament meeting this Sunday, but I kept thinking about the one thing that's been my biggest stumbling block.

Okay

That's the idea that there's been an infinit regress of Gods,

There is no "infinite regress of Gods" theology within Mormonism. The official doctrine is that we have One God, and we know of none else.

Yes, there IS a school of thought within Mormonism that there might also be some sort of an infinite regression, but without further revelation from God, that's simply not a settled question yet.

To try and answer this, I don't think the Heavens work on a "linear" timeline. I think there is some sort of Eternal Round in play, thus the Father is able to be the most High God, but also able to be from somewhere himself.

and that we're literal spirit children of literal parents with bodies of flesh and bones.

Yes, spirit/energy and matter are Eternal principles. The "Resurrection" is an Eternal Principle.

if Gods, their bodies, gender differences, and laws of sexual reproduction simply exist (without being intelligently designed), don't you have to throw the Bible and the Book of Mormon out the window?

Not at all.

The Book of Mormon says:

...if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation...(2 Nephi 11:7.)

And the Bible says:

...For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead. (Romans 1:20.)

And:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. (Psalm 19:1-3.)

Aren't Paul, Nephi, and the Psalmist saying that things that appear to be intelligently designed (like our bodies, our reproductive systems, etc.) are evidence of an intelligent designer?

Not sure what you are asking here? You seemed to have went from one question to another.

Yes, we already know that there was an "intelligent designer". Note also how the word "Godhead" is used above in Romans? Being the intelligent designer of earth, heavens, etc., doesn't mean there wasn't a per-mortal life. Clearly, we know in the Creation that Christ was technically the Creator, or another way to put it actually the Godhead.

Maybe you can clarify "where" your problem resides?

[ldsfaqs]

Is it possible that God (The Father) organized (imagined, willed, designed) His own body (and Heavenly Mother's)?

Possible, if he also existed as "Intelligence" previously.

And is it possible that "procreation in heaven" is more metephorical than literal?

Given that LDS doctrine states that we existed as "Intelligenences" prior to being organized as the spirit children of the Father, I liken what occured in the pre-mortal life as being similar to what happens in this life with Family's. Our children are not actually our children, they are on loan to us. But, they yes are still our children, we love them, they are of our flesh etc. I think it's probable that our spirits are of the Fathers & Mothers spirits.

Remember, we don't know everything. But the important thing for God to get across, the thing that was lost to the Christian world, is our worth, who we are, and who we can be. That's the important information as to our salvation and exaltation.

The problem is that if the intelligent person who made/created/organized things (and put them together) has a body that no-one organized (or put together), then organized things can exist without an intelligent person organizing them (or putting them together.)

We know that according to Christ, and the inspiration of Joseph Smith in the KFD, that the Father was apparently once like Christ.

It's possible, that the Father WAS the "intelligent person" you mention. We know in LDS theology and science that nothing can be created nor destroyed, only changed, from one form to another. In other words, matter and energy always has existed in some form, prior to it being organized, created. Remember, Intelligence, spirit, etc. is energy and power, along with the power of Will. The Father by the power of his own intelligence, then spirit, and will could have potentially done it all.

Doesnt that directly contradict the logic that Paul, Nephi, and the Psalmist use to prove the existence of a Creator?

Not at all. You must remember also that their descriptions are essentially describing the things around them, what they see in heaven and earth. They aren't really talking about things they don't know about.

[ldsfaqs]

Boy..... 23 posts, and I STILL cannot "edit". See no real purpose for such a rule.

I wanted to clarify when I said "I think it's probable that our spirits are of the Fathers & Mothers spirits." That likewise our intelligences, becoming spirits through the Father, doesn't mean we are also his children, for we also are on loan to him, for we existed before as intelligence.

[LeSellers]

23 posts, and I STILL cannot "edit". See no real purpose for such a rule.

You weren't here when the rule was inaugurated. Withhold judgment for a while yet.

Lehi

[elguanteloko]

Do you mean to imply that "Mormonism," as you and so many others incorrect call it, does not encourage its members to use reason and logic in their gospel studies?

They may encourage proper reasoning but they don't use it or use it coyly. Most of the time, though, I doubt they even know what it is.

Also, I have studied other faiths seriously, and I have seen that the claims of other religions fall extremely short in comparison with the views, claims, and intellectually satisfying doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ.

good for you, I guess.

Edited July 21, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

You know, having done this myself, on the contrary I do not find any other "doctrine sets" that make me as intellectually satisfied.

Buddhism, with its very intricate and interesting cosmology, comes closer to the mark, so to speak, than any other, but I still find it incomplete and contrived.

"Doctrine sets" is the worst and last place you can go to to evaluate religions intellectually. That's quite similarly to giving only the conclusions for arguments and expecting people to accept them; that's silly. It is in the justifications that Mormons fall short to other religions.

I really hope you don't take this as an offense because it isn't one, but you seem to have an idea of "intellectually satisfying" as meaning that you like it or fulfills you... that is very scary.

[LeSellers]

Everyone has a problem with "infinite regression". It is beyond the human mind's capacity for understanding.

However, we have nearly as big a problem with an ultimate beginning. The question arises, "What caused that?" or "Where did that come from?"

That one person chooses to focus on the "problem" of infinte regression, and another person on the "problem" of an ultimate beginning is unsurprising. For me, an ultimate beginning is far more problematic than no beginning. It's not because I have resolved the conflict, but it's because I can acknowledge that infinity exists. My (limited) mathematical background makes it far easier to accept it (which is different from understanding it), and that's how it works out for me.

However, in either case, infinity or beginning, there is no demonstrable answer.

Moreover, even for those who postulate a beginning, they still fall back on a Creator who had no beginning Himself. Which means their answer requires an infinity. One of the early theologians (a "calling" that did not exist in the Bible, we might note) implictly recognized the weakness in this positon because he imagined a special place in hel1 for those who ask the question, "What was God doing before the creation?"

Lehi

Edited July 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[inquiringmind]

Yes, I think the scriptural prophecies are about God’s work and glory for us in this world. If there were no God, the world and our bodies would not have entered mortality. The form in which we existed before would not have advanced into this estate since we could not have done it ourselves. There would have been no temporal creation as far as we are concerned, so we would not be the spirits and bodies temporarily interconnected that we currently are. Arguably we would have continued in a co-eternal estate without the influence of a God.

I think 2 Nephi 11:7, and Alma 30:44 imply more than that.

In Alma 30:44, Alma the younger tells Korihor "all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and it's motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."

It seems clear to me that he's arguing that the complexity and order of this creation points to the existence of intelligence and design.

If we posit an infinite reality of equal complexity and order, uncaused by any intelligence or design, we destroy the whole basis of his argument.

We would in effect be saying that anything could "simply exist" without "a Supreme Creator."

I don't believe that's true.

I believe there must be some intelligence behind all functional design, and I wonder if anyone here has heard of the biocentric universe theory?

Could that be an answer (and does anyone find this interesting)?

[Quantum Interactive Dualism: An Alternative to Materialism, Henry P. Stapp]

Von Neumann showed that one can place the entire physical world, including the

bodies and brains of the agents, in the physically described world. Then the

entire physical world is described in the mathematical language of quantum

mechanics. In this von Neumann formulation the physically described action

associated with the consciously intended probing action by the agent is a

mathematically described action on the brain of that agent. The psychophysical

causal connections thereby become mind-brain causal connections. This makes

the theory similar to a Cartesian Interactive dualism, with, however, causal

connections between the two realms now specified, in part, by the basic laws of

physics.

This feature overcomes the main objection to Cartesian dualism, which was the

lack of any understanding of how a person’s mind could have any effect upon

that person’s brain...

Von Neumann’s theory is a development of the pragmatic Copenhagen form. But

if one considers the von Neumann theory to be an ontological description of what

is really going on, then one must of course relax the anthropocentric bias, and

allow agents of many ilks...

http://www-physics.l.../~stapp/QID.pdf

Edited July 21, 2011 by inquiringmind

[mfbukowski]

I'm still investigationg the Mormon Church, and I went to sacrament meeting this Sunday, but I kept thinking about the one thing that's been my biggest stumbling block.

That's the idea that there's been an infinit regress of Gods, and that we're literal spirit children of literal parents with bodies of flesh and bones.

if Gods, their bodies, gender differences, and laws of sexual reproduction simply exist (without being intelligently designed), don't you have to throw the Bible and the Book of Mormon out the window?

The Book of Mormon says:

...if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation...(2 Nephi 11:7.)

And the Bible says:

...For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead. (Romans 1:20.)

And:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. (Psalm 19:1-3.)

Aren't Paul, Nephi, and the Psalmist saying that things that appear to be intelligently designed (like our bodies, our reproductive systems, etc.) are evidence of an intelligent designer?

My advice to you is don't EVER take ANYTHING too literally when it comes to spiritual truth, especially non-canonized statements which should probably not be considered "doctrine".

Being LDS is an attitude toward God and man- it is an understanding that we are one with our Father who is indeed our father who loves us, and reveals truth to us directly.

There is an extremely wide variation of belief on these matters all of which are acceptable to being LDS.

In short, your belief or lack thereof in an "infinite regress of gods "is optional.

The mere fact that it is debated here should be evidence that LDS are of many beliefs on this point. That question will not be on the baptismal interview, nor is it in the temple recommend questions!

D&C 58:

26For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is ^acompelled in all things, the same is a ^bslothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

27Verily I say, men should be ^aanxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

28For the power is in them, wherein they are ^aagents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their ^breward.

29But he that ^adoeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with ^bdoubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is ^cdamned.

"Damned" in the sense of "dammed" as in "to stop from progressing".

Don't worry about this. Pray about it and figure it out for yourself. It doesn't matter to your progression if you can figure out the "infinite regress" or not- but getting baptized does!

[CV75]

I think 2 Nephi 11:7, and Alma 30:44 imply more than that.

In Alma 30:44, Alma the younger tells Korihor "all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and it's motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."

It seems clear to me that he's arguing that the complexity and order of this creation points to the existence of intelligence and design.

If we posit an infinite reality of equal complexity and order, uncaused by any intelligence or design, we destroy the whole basis of his argument.

We would in effect be saying that anything could "simply exist" without "a Supreme Creator."

I don't believe that's true.

I believe there must be some intelligence behind all functional design, and I wonder if anyone here has heard of the biocentric universe theory?

Could that be an answer (and does anyone find this interesting)?

[Quantum Interactive Dualism: An Alternative to Materialism, Henry P. Stapp]

http://www-physics.l.../~stapp/QID.pdf

The planets are part and parcel of the temporal world as well as the rest of the temporal universe, but my understanding is that without God, these things would not exist temporally. I think the intelligence and the design is getting it out of the earlier estate and into this one, and then into the next (His work and glory).

I explained how this creation (regardless of the level of complexity or order) points more to the role of God in transitioning things from a lower to a higher estate (the immortality and eternal life of man) than in the existence of its components in earlier estates. As wonderful as the complexity and order is, it is more wonderful that God can make it progress eternally.

Nothing could exist temporally without the Creator bringing it to this estate, but all things did exist in some form or fashion co-eternally prior to His organizing them in this temporal universe per Genesis and Pearl of Great Price. I do think this is where Nephi was coming from, and that all things existed in another estate co-eternally does not require an eternal or infinite regress to be relevant in the next estate, though it is how some may understand it now.

I’ll take a look at your link/quote later and hopefully understand it enough to comment!

[mfbukowski]

I don't believe that's true, but has anyone heard of the biocentric universe theory?

Heck yeah!

Good stuff! I know that people will flip out if I say this, but on this view there is a sense in which it can be believed that intelligence itself transforms itself toward complexity, and that the universe is programmed to grow organically almost like a plant etc. I hate the word "evolution" but to say that "gods evolved"- ie were intentionally programmed to become what they are- is not far off of what I believe.

Of course one has to take this on faith as much as an infinite regress of gods- because there is very little evidence for any of these ideas.

[inquiringmind]

My advice to you is don't EVER take ANYTHING too literally when it comes to spiritual truth, especially non-canonized statements which should probably not be considered "doctrine".

Being LDS is an attitude toward God and man- it is an understanding that we are one with our Father who is indeed our father who loves us, and reveals truth to us directly.

There is an extremely wide variation of belief on these matters all of which are acceptable to being LDS.

In short, your belief or lack thereof in an "infinite regress of gods "is optional.

The mere fact that it is debated here should be evidence that LDS are of many beliefs on this point. That question will not be on the baptismal interview, nor is it in the temple recommend questions!

D&C 58:

"Damned" in the sense of "dammed" as in "to stop from progressing".

Don't worry about this. Pray about it and figure it out for yourself. It doesn't matter to your progression if you can figure out the "infinite regress" or not- but getting baptized does!

Thank you mfbukowski.

Edited July 21, 2011 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

Heck yeah!

Good stuff! I know that people will flip out if I say this, but on this view there is a sense in which it can be believed that intelligence itself transforms itself toward complexity, and that the universe is programmed to grow organically almost like a plant etc. I hate the word "evolution" but to say that "gods evolved"- ie were intentionally programmed to become what they are- is not far off of what I believe.

Of course one has to take this on faith as much as an infinite regress of gods- because there is very little evidence for any of these ideas.

That means a supreme intelligence would still be behind it all, and that (for me) makes some sense out of what Paul, David, Nephi, and Alma were saying.

Thanks again mfbukowski.

Edited July 21, 2011 by inquiringmind

[mfbukowski]

That means a supreme intelligence would still be behind it all, and that (for me) makes some sense out of what Paul, David, Nephi, and Alma were saying.

Thanks again mfbukowski.

Yep. That's why I like it. It seems to reconcile it all.

[mfbukowski]

That means a supreme intelligence would still be behind it all, and that (for me) makes some sense out of what Paul, David, Nephi, and Alma were saying.

Thanks again mfbukowski.

Here's a taste of a philosopher named Teilhard de Chardin, who was Catholic until he was excommunicated (at least that is my understanding)

Chardin believes that the world is "fundamentally and initially living," that the whole of cosmic history is one vast operation of evolution, culminating an a "slow but progressive concentration of a diffuse consciousness."63 It is especially important to note that, once we are aware of what is happening to us, we can stop "groping about" in the dark, and take conscious control of our evolution to speed it on its way. We can become the willing "co-creators" with God, fulfilling our birthright implied in our being made in God's image.

We must also trust the Spirit of God to guide us. Chardin says that if the cosmos is not to disperse itself into infinite and meaningless plurality, we must assume that the convergent movement toward unity in the form of spirit will continue to operate as it has in the past.64 And this progress, as all evolution, all progress does, has cost, and will cost, dearly. Even so, Chardin is full of hope. "The world is an immense groping," he writes, "an immense enterprise, an immense attack; its progress is made at the price of much failure and many wounds.... What will be sufficient, even in our unorganized state, to compensate humanity for the anguish of its ills? Simply for consciousness to awake to an object born from its sufferings."65

Crucial to Chardin's thought at this point is his assertion that matter and spirit are different states of the same thing. All matter, down to the tiniest atom, has an "outside," a manifestation of physical energy, which is perceptible in all things, and an "inside," a manifestation of spiritual or psychic energy, which is possessed by all, but only emerges in more and more structured and complex organisms. The fruit of spiritual energy, according to Murray, is characterized by "reflection, freedom, purpose, and love," and is most easily recognizable in humankind.66 Chardin writes, "Matter and Spirit: these were no longer two things, but...two aspect of one and the same cosmic Stuff, according to whether it was looked at or carried further in the direction in which it is becoming itself, or in the direction in which it is disintegrating. Matter is the Matrix of Spirit. Spirit is the higher state of Matter.67

One way of looking at this is to see evolution as occurring on two axes: a "horizontal" axis of matter, which "pushes toward a higher degree of material complexity," and the "vertical" axis of Spirit, which "evolves toward a higher development of consciousness."68 According to Chardin, the "inside" and "outside" stuff of the Universe are "Functionally related...in a quasi-measurable articulation, with this double result, not only of furnishing us at last with a unified picture of the Universe, but of bursting the two barriers behind which man was beginning to think himself forever imprisoned, the magic circle of phenomenalism, and the infernal circle of egocentrism."69 It is the very process of the evolution, in humankind, of matter into spirit, or as Murray puts it, "turning matter inside out,"70 towards which we are now moving as a people, as a planet.

http://apocryphile.org/jrm/articles/process.html

He died in 1955, and now I bet I know what side he is working for in the spirit world.

[Questing Beast]

Yes, I think the scriptural prophecies are about God’s work and glory for us in this world. If there were no God, the world and our bodies would not have entered mortality. The form in which we existed before would not have advanced into this estate since we could not have done it ourselves. There would have been no temporal creation as far as we are concerned, so we would not be the spirits and bodies temporarily interconnected that we currently are. Arguably we would have continued in a co-eternal estate without the influence of a God.

So "God" evolved accidentally? From the morass of "intelligences", One arose and became the One God; and from that One God sprang all of existence so-organized as we know it.

I do not buy that theology. Because the greatest concept for "God" that I have been able to conceive so far makes such a theology as puny as any other paganism. Gods of this world are not to be worshiped: only the greatest concept possible to conceive of is worthy of worship. An organizing god is not I AM. It is merely a lord of a single world; no matter how big that world is,even to the extent of the whole universe, it is still only one world. The infinity of uncaused matter mocks such a being who arose by accident to pronounce itself "God"....

[inquiringmind]

Here's a taste of a philosopher named Teilhard de Chardin, who was Catholic until he was excommunicated (at least that is my understanding)

http://apocryphile.o...es/process.html

He died in 1955, and now I bet I know what side he is working for in the spirit world.

[Teilhard de Chardin]

...matter and spirit are different states of the same thing...Matter is the Matrix of Spirit. Spirit is the higher state of Matter.

Is this compatible with LDS doctrine?

So "God" evolved accidentally? From the morass of "intelligences", One arose and became the One God; and from that One God sprang all of existence so-organized as we know it.

I do not buy that theology. Because the greatest concept for "God" that I have been able to conceive so far makes such a theology as puny as any other paganism. Gods of this world are not to be worshiped: only the greatest concept possible to conceive of is worthy of worship. An organizing god is not I AM. It is merely a lord of a single world; no matter how big that world is,even to the extent of the whole universe, it is still only one world. The infinity of uncaused matter mocks such a being who arose by accident to pronounce itself "God"....

Is it possible we're not talking about "accident" here?

Is it possible it's all guded by a Supreme Intelligence?

Edited July 21, 2011 by inquiringmind

[LeSellers]

Is this [matter and spirit are different states of the same thing] compatible with LDS doctrine?

Yes.

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; 8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

Lehi

Edited July 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[Questing Beast]

A "Supreme Intelligence" separate from a corporeal "God the Father" who wills his own body into existence, is the God to be worshipped, then. I see no reason to worship a lesser being, no matter how intelligent or powerful compared to us. Such a being would also be perfectly aware of its origins, its own Caused state, attributable to The Supreme Being/Intelligence. And God the Father surely worships A GOD too, if this is indeed the truth of the matter. That might possibly be the God to seek for, but only, imho, if such a "God" is the ultimate Supreme Being/Intelligence....

[CV75]

The planets are part and parcel of the temporal world as well as the rest of the temporal universe, but my understanding is that without God, these things would not exist temporally. I think the intelligence and the design is getting it out of the earlier estate and into this one, and then into the next (His work and glory).

I explained how this creation (regardless of the level of complexity or order) points more to the role of God in transitioning things from a lower to a higher estate (the immortality and eternal life of man) than in the existence of its components in earlier estates. As wonderful as the complexity and order is, it is more wonderful that God can make it progress eternally.

Nothing could exist temporally without the Creator bringing it to this estate, but all things did exist in some form or fashion co-eternally prior to His organizing them in this temporal universe per Genesis and Pearl of Great Price. I do think this is where Nephi was coming from, and that all things existed in another estate co-eternally does not require an eternal or infinite regress to be relevant in the next estate, though it is how some may understand it now.

I’ll take a look at your link/quote later and hopefully understand it enough to comment!

Sorry, I could not load the link, but I think I understand the quote you posted. I got some flack once for suggesting that a primal, co-eternal intelligence’s will served as the fuel to assert its interests and influence in one direction or another, and serve as a key factor in that intelligence’s response to its neighbors in such a way as to enable it to be “added upon” and thus advance in the realms that we might have passed through long before we even became spirits, and this is how God became God before Christ did or we can. I do take my ideas, and other ideas shared on this board, with a grain of salt. My testimony is something else.

I would suggest that recognizing what is spiritual within you and what is a thought process is important, and not allow the latter to keep you from acting on faith. We are to think and ponder before we pray, but not until we pray (should that day never come!), acting upon the hope in Christ that we will reconcile all our questions someday. In other words, the desire to pray is a spiritual impulse and not an intellectual one, and establishing a connection with God should not be put off until you’ve settled every question first.

[elguanteloko]

A "Supreme Intelligence" separate from a corporeal "God the Father" who wills his own body into existence, is the God to be worshipped, then. I see no reason to worship a lesser being, no matter how intelligent or powerful compared to us.

That's something I don't get. Why worship such a being?

[CV75]

Of course one has to take this on faith as much as an infinite regress of gods- because there is very little evidence for any of these ideas.

"What he said"--except instead of "on faith", I would insert "as a working belief (to be taken with a grain of salt until the perfect day bursts upon us)" !!!

[inquiringmind]

That's something I don't get. Why worship such a being?

Just a thought, but maybe because He's wiser than we are?

Maybe because He's good, and we're not?

Maybe because He's a manifestation of light and truth, and the only way we can aproach that light and truth is through Him?

And maybe just for the same reason that children (who can't support themselves, are dependant on their parents, and for whom their parents sacrifice much of their lives) are expected to honor their Mothers and Fathers?

Edited July 22, 2011 by inquiringmind

[mfbukowski]

A "Supreme Intelligence" separate from a corporeal "God the Father" who wills his own body into existence, is the God to be worshipped, then. I see no reason to worship a lesser being, no matter how intelligent or powerful compared to us. Such a being would also be perfectly aware of its origins, its own Caused state, attributable to The Supreme Being/Intelligence. And God the Father surely worships A GOD too, if this is indeed the truth of the matter. That might possibly be the God to seek for, but only, imho, if such a "God" is the ultimate Supreme Being/Intelligence....

That's because you are stuck in Aristotelian causality.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2104647

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2416

Edited July 22, 2011 by mfbukowski

[inquiringmind]

That's because you are stuck in Aristotelian causality.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2104647

http://www.religion-....asp?title=2416

I thought we kinda agreed that there could be some truth to Aristotelian causality?

That means a supreme intelligence would still be behind it all, and that (for me) makes some sense out of what Paul, David, Nephi, and Alma were saying.

Thanks again mfbukowski.

Yep. That's why I like it. It seems to reconcile it all.

Edited July 22, 2011 by inquiringmind