Mystics, Gnostics And Mormon Theogony

[Magyar]

The Gnostic movement in the early centuries of the Christian era tended to believe that the God of the Old Testament was an inferior, even evil being -- one of passions and flaws; whilst the God above him was the true unmoved mover, utterly beyond comprehension and description.

Reading today the 4th century Christian mystical work The Divine Names, pseudepigraphically attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, I am struck by how this writer's version of Christianity seemed to echo the Gnostic theology -- but with a critical difference: He says there is but one God, who is both the unmoved Mover, unknowable, above and beyond all things; and yet, who is also knowable through His emanations. If it seems contradictory, that is the beauty and mystery of it, says the writer. He also suggests that God created the intelligences in the universe. It is, seems to me, the Gnostic theology but with the two beings combined into one, and without suggesting any evil, inferiority or flaw in the knowable aspect of God.

This work, it is written, had a great influence upon Medieval Christianity.

Now what if I were to speculate a little: The Prophet Joseph, towards the end of his life, began to talk a lot about the nature of God, how God became God, the idea that we could become gods ourselves, and the possibility that God Himself had a Father, too. Could it possible that a combination of both Gnostic and this mystic's thought could be correct? That the Creator of our Creator is in fact the One Unmoved Mover, the Great Unknowable, beyond all comprehension and description, but that His "Son," our more tangible Elohim, while a separate being, as the Gnostics taught, is not evil or flawed?

[etana]

The Gnostic movement in the early centuries of the Christian era tended to believe that the God of the Old Testament was an inferior, even evil being -- one of passions and flaws; whilst the God above him was the true unmoved mover, utterly beyond comprehension and description.

Reading today the 4th century Christian mystical work The Divine Names, pseudepigraphically attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, I am struck by how this writer's version of Christianity seemed to echo the Gnostic theology -- but with a critical difference: He says there is but one God, who is both the unmoved Mover, unknowable, above and beyond all things; and yet, who is also knowable through His emanations. If it seems contradictory, that is the beauty and mystery of it, says the writer. He also suggests that God created the intelligences in the universe. It is, seems to me, the Gnostic theology but with the two beings combined into one, and without suggesting any evil, inferiority or flaw in the knowable aspect of God.

This work, it is written, had a great influence upon Medieval Christianity.

Now what if I were to speculate a little: The Prophet Joseph, towards the end of his life, began to talk a lot about the nature of God, how God became God, the idea that we could become gods ourselves, and the possibility that God Himself had a Father, too. Could it possible that a combination of both Gnostic and this mystic's thought could be correct? That the Creator of our Creator is in fact the One Unmoved Mover, the Great Unknowable, beyond all comprehension and description, but that His "Son," our more tangible Elohim, while a separate being, as the Gnostics taught, is not evil or flawed?

This is a thoughtful post and deserves a response. I find that the Gnostics have fossilized some truths, but that there is a pretty wide spectrum of theology there. For example Ialdabaoth the demiurge (not sure i spelled that right and too lazy to google) is often countered or opposed by the great angel Iaoel (a "Jehovah" figure) and is sometimes said to have been created by the Proennoia (first thought--a kind of emanation of the feminine/wisdom aspects of God) or descendant of hers without the approval of God.

I find the demiurge more useful as a conflation of a satan figure--complete with its own hierarchy of powers and angels--with the vengeful aspects of the god of the OT. But that said, there is a lot of variation in what we call Gnostic thought and I like where you're going here.

[Magyar]

This is a thoughtful post and deserves a response. I find that the Gnostics have fossilized some truths, but that there is a pretty wide spectrum of theology there. For example Ialdabaoth the demiurge (not sure i spelled that right and too lazy to google) is often countered or opposed by the great angel Iaoel (a "Jehovah" figure) and is sometimes said to have been created by the Proennoia (first thought--a kind of emanation of the feminine/wisdom aspects of God) or descendant of hers without the approval of God.

I find the demiurge more useful as a conflation of a satan figure--complete with its own hierarchy of powers and angels--with the vengeful aspects of the god of the OT. But that said, there is a lot of variation in what we call Gnostic thought and I like where you're going here.

Thank you.

[Magyar]

This is a thoughtful post and deserves a response. I find that the Gnostics have fossilized some truths, but that there is a pretty wide spectrum of theology there. For example Ialdabaoth the demiurge (not sure i spelled that right and too lazy to google) is often countered or opposed by the great angel Iaoel (a "Jehovah" figure) and is sometimes said to have been created by the Proennoia (first thought--a kind of emanation of the feminine/wisdom aspects of God) or descendant of hers without the approval of God.

I find the demiurge more useful as a conflation of a satan figure--complete with its own hierarchy of powers and angels--with the vengeful aspects of the god of the OT. But that said, there is a lot of variation in what we call Gnostic thought and I like where you're going here.

[mfbukowski]

The Gnostic movement in the early centuries of the Christian era tended to believe that the God of the Old Testament was an inferior, even evil being -- one of passions and flaws; whilst the God above him was the true unmoved mover, utterly beyond comprehension and description.

Reading today the 4th century Christian mystical work The Divine Names, pseudepigraphically attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, I am struck by how this writer's version of Christianity seemed to echo the Gnostic theology -- but with a critical difference: He says there is but one God, who is both the unmoved Mover, unknowable, above and beyond all things; and yet, who is also knowable through His emanations. If it seems contradictory, that is the beauty and mystery of it, says the writer. He also suggests that God created the intelligences in the universe. It is, seems to me, the Gnostic theology but with the two beings combined into one, and without suggesting any evil, inferiority or flaw in the knowable aspect of God.

This work, it is written, had a great influence upon Medieval Christianity.

Now what if I were to speculate a little: The Prophet Joseph, towards the end of his life, began to talk a lot about the nature of God, how God became God, the idea that we could become gods ourselves, and the possibility that God Himself had a Father, too. Could it possible that a combination of both Gnostic and this mystic's thought could be correct? That the Creator of our Creator is in fact the One Unmoved Mover, the Great Unknowable, beyond all comprehension and description, but that His "Son," our more tangible Elohim, while a separate being, as the Gnostics taught, is not evil or flawed?

I will give you a very unscholarly but true response.

Nah! That unmoved mover Great Unknowable stuff is strictly out of Neoplatonism and is not a God who is our Father and hears and answers prayers and gives personal revelation to his children to understand him in a manner in which they are capable.

But that doesn't mean that fragments of the truth- that God organizes intelligences- didn't survive in Gnostic teachings and others.

I see the truth in the time of apostasy as a bottle smashed on the rocks amid other broken bottles and debris. Many picked up a shard here or a shard there, or even put several true shards together.

If you are saying this guy and others had "true shards" you have no argument from me- but if you want to include Neoplatonism as part of the "true restored gospel" -

That the Creator of our Creator is in fact the One Unmoved Mover, the Great Unknowable, beyond all comprehension and description, but that His "Son," our more tangible Elohim, while a separate being, as the Gnostics taught, is not evil or flawed?

I ain't buying it!

[inquiringmind]

The Gnostic movement in the early centuries of the Christian era tended to believe that the God of the Old Testament was an inferior, even evil being -- one of passions and flaws; whilst the God above him was the true unmoved mover, utterly beyond comprehension and description.

Reading today the 4th century Christian mystical work The Divine Names, pseudepigraphically attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, I am struck by how this writer's version of Christianity seemed to echo the Gnostic theology -- but with a critical difference: He says there is but one God, who is both the unmoved Mover, unknowable, above and beyond all things; and yet, who is also knowable through His emanations. If it seems contradictory, that is the beauty and mystery of it, says the writer. He also suggests that God created the intelligences in the universe. It is, seems to me, the Gnostic theology but with the two beings combined into one, and without suggesting any evil, inferiority or flaw in the knowable aspect of God.

This work, it is written, had a great influence upon Medieval Christianity.

Now what if I were to speculate a little: The Prophet Joseph, towards the end of his life, began to talk a lot about the nature of God, how God became God, the idea that we could become gods ourselves, and the possibility that God Himself had a Father, too. Could it possible that a combination of both Gnostic and this mystic's thought could be correct? That the Creator of our Creator is in fact the One Unmoved Mover, the Great Unknowable, beyond all comprehension and description, but that His "Son," our more tangible Elohim, while a separate being, as the Gnostics taught, is not evil or flawed?

Thank you for posting this.

It's directly related to one of my greatest stumbling blocks, and I find it helpful.

Edited September 2, 2011 by inquiringmind

[Questing Beast]

My problem with Mormon theology is that "God the Father" is not the Cause (unmoved mover) of Existence in the first place. "God the Father" finds himself among eternal spirits, and finds also that he is in possession of greater glory and intelligence than any of the rest. So he "saves" himself first (whatever that means), then sets about planning for the salvation of all other souls. Those who follow this greater intellect can enjoy his glory. But why we must worship a being like ourselves is what I cannot understand or accept....

[mfbukowski]

My problem with Mormon theology is that "God the Father" is not the Cause (unmoved mover) of Existence in the first place. "God the Father" finds himself among eternal spirits, and finds also that he is in possession of greater glory and intelligence than any of the rest. So he "saves" himself first (whatever that means), then sets about planning for the salvation of all other souls. Those who follow this greater intellect can enjoy his glory. But why we must worship a being like ourselves is what I cannot understand or accept....

I don't know how old you are or if you will catch the reference, but are you saying that he sits at the top of a topless throne? Is he so big he can fill the universe, but so small that he can dwell in your heart?

Sounds like it's time to discuss Hume on causality again?

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Hume proceeds first negatively, to show that our causal inferences are not due to reason, or any operation of the understanding. Reasoning concerns either relations of ideas or matters of fact. Hume quickly establishes that, whatever assures us that a causal relation obtains, it is not reasoning concerning relations between ideas. Effects are distinct events from their causes: we can always conceive of one such event occurring and the other not. So causal reasoning can't be a priori reasoning.

Causes and effects are discovered, not by reason but through experience, when we find that particular objects are constantly conjoined with one another. We tend to overlook this because most ordinary causal judgments are so familiar; we've made them so many times that our judgment seems immediate. But when we consider the matter, we realize that “an (absolutely) unexperienced reasoner could be no reasoner at all” (EHU, 45n). Even in applied mathematics, where we use abstract reasoning and geometrical methods to apply principles we regard as laws to particular cases in order to derive further principles as consequences of these laws, the discovery of the original law itself was due to experience and observation, not to a priori reasoning.

Even after we have experience of causal connections, our conclusions from those experiences aren't based on any reasoning or on any other process of the understanding. They are based on our past experiences of similar cases, without which we could draw no conclusions at all.....

This argument exhausts the ways reason might establish a connection between cause and effect, and so completes the negative phase of Hume's project. The explanatory model of human nature which makes reason prominent and dominant in thought and action is indefensible. Scepticism about it is well-founded: the model must go.....

As we should expect from the preceding discussion, when we examine a single case of two events we regard as causally related, our impressions are only of their conjunction; the single case, taken by itself, yields no notion of their connection. When we go beyond the single case to examine the background of experienced constant conjunctions of similar pairs of events, we find little to add, for “there is nothing in a number of instances, different from every single instance, which is supposed to be exactly similar” (EHU, 75). How can the mere repetition of conjunctions produce a connection?

While there is indeed nothing added to our external senses by this exercise, something does happen: “after a repetition of similar instances, the mind is carried by habit, upon the appearance of one event, to expect its usual attendant, and to believe that it will exist.” We feel this transition as an impression of reflection, or internal sensation, and it is this feeling of determination that is “the sentiment or impression from which we form the idea of power or necessary connexion. Nothing farther is in the case” (EHU, 75).

The long and the short of it is that Hume shows that there are no logically necessary connections between causes and effects- such are the result of our repeatedly seeing such connections and our habit of associating them.

Thus there IS no "Prime Mover" or First Cause.

The reason LDS theology does not require a First Cause is because such a thing doesn't exist.

[inquiringmind]

I don't know how old you are or if you will catch the reference, but are you saying that he sits at the top of a topless throne? Is he so big he can fill the universe, but so small that he can dwell in your heart?

Sounds like it's time to discuss Hume on causality again?

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The long and the short of it is that Hume shows that there are no logically necessary connections between causes and effects- such are the result of our repeatedly seeing such connections and our habit of associating them.

Thus there IS no "Prime Mover" or First Cause.

The reason LDS theology does not require a First Cause is because such a thing doesn't exist.

The problem is that if you're right here, both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are wrong.

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:

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.)

[inquiringmind]

My problem with Mormon theology is that "God the Father" is not the Cause (unmoved mover) of Existence in the first place. "God the Father" finds himself among eternal spirits, and finds also that he is in possession of greater glory and intelligence than any of the rest. So he "saves" himself first (whatever that means), then sets about planning for the salvation of all other souls. Those who follow this greater intellect can enjoy his glory. But why we must worship a being like ourselves is what I cannot understand or accept....

Budha never claimed to be a god, and his followers didn't regard him as one, but they still followed.

I'm not suggesting his teachings had much of value, but the point is that they thought he had something they didn't, and they had the humility to follow.

Edited September 2, 2011 by inquiringmind

[mfbukowski]

The problem is that if you're right here, both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are wrong.

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:

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.)

I am not saying that God did not create the earth- where did you get that? The argument is about logic and causality- all I am saying is that the concept of "prime mover" invented by Aristotle and then adopted by Thomas Aquinas, is incorrect.

You cannot show that anything is a "logically necessary" cause of anything else.

What was any person's "cause"? Was it their parent's meeting each other? Was it their grandparents? Was it the fact that their grandparents came to America or did not come to America because of whatever reason they came or didnt come to America?

How about your 16th great grandfather? What in his life contributed to being your "cause"?

You can look at the cause of anything this way- there are always antecedent conditions which must exist- and logically you can pick any one of these as a "cause" of anything that comes after. It is up to you to decide somewhat arbitrarily about what is a "cause".

And then there are necessary causes and sufficient causes- there are multiple theories of causation and many problems with the whole idea of a "First Cause"

But that does not mean God does not exist or did not create or organize the worlds- the point is strictly a logical one. There are many ways of looking at this

Edited September 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[inquiringmind]

I am not saying that God did not create the earth- where did you get that? The argument is about logic and causality...

And the logic of the Bible (in Psalm 19), and the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 11:7) is that the effect of a creation requires a Ceator as it's cause.

Read the passages again.

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

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.)

Edited September 2, 2011 by inquiringmind

[Maidservant]

My problem with Mormon theology is that "God the Father" is not the Cause (unmoved mover) of Existence in the first place. "God the Father" finds himself among eternal spirits, and finds also that he is in possession of greater glory and intelligence than any of the rest. So he "saves" himself first (whatever that means), then sets about planning for the salvation of all other souls. Those who follow this greater intellect can enjoy his glory. But why we must worship a being like ourselves is what I cannot understand or accept....

While I respect where you are coming at with this (and many would agree, even within Mormonism, preferring to emphasize the "Exalted" part of the phrase "Exalted Man") . . . I have to say I am the complete opposite even to the point of substituting within this sentence: "But why I must worship a being unlike myself is what I cannot understand or accept . . ." . . . and thankfully don't have to (as a Mormon).

I should mention that I do understand God (or God energy or the spirit or light or life or good) to be invested in all of the multi-metaverse, and I perceive that Heavenly Father is an adept at abiding within (creating with, etc) that life, and we are following him, to do the same. While I could find some support for my thinking in the scriptures, I recognize that how I am conceiving of this is not the expression of Mormon doctrine, as such.

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:

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.)

I think the difficulty of these words and of ideas such as "prime mover" is that our culture is imprisoned at the moment within a paradigm that conceives of causality to be linear/chronological. That is, point A, straight line to point B. I would suggest the exercise of pondering on ripples of water, and how there is a center that radiates influence. This is not the entire structure of understanding, but it is an initial exercise that will eventually allow a person to understand something like 2 Nephi 11:7 in terms of no beginning and no end and in terms of how God creates (not at one event moment in the past, but constantly, presently, and eternally) (so I say ).

[inquiringmind]

]I do understand God (or God energy or the spirit or light or life or good) to be invested in all of the multi-metaverse, and I perceive that Heavenly Father is an adept at abiding within (creating with, etc) that life, and we are following him, to do the same...I think the difficulty of these words and of ideas such as "prime mover" is that our culture is imprisoned at the moment within a paradigm that conceives of causality to be linear/chronological. That is, point A, straight line to point B. I would suggest the exercise of pondering on ripples of water, and how there is a center that radiates influence. This is not the entire structure of understanding, but it is an initial exercise that will eventually allow a person to understand something like 2 Nephi 11:7 in terms of no beginning and no end and in terms of how God creates (not at one event moment in the past, but constantly, presently, and eternally)

Thank you Maidservant.

[LeSellers]

The Book of Mormon says:

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

They can both be right, and are.

In the Nephi passage, father Lehi tells us that we are dependent on God, that we would not exist were He to fail.

And the Bible says:

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.)

Again, this universe was created by our Father and God. If He did not exist, our earth and our heavens would not, either. They, right along with us, are His creation, and do, indeed, "[shew] His handywork."

Those two facts (along with a host of similar ones) do not negate a third fact: there was no beginning (neither of Gods nor of creations), and there will be no end.

Lehi

[HeatherAnn]

While I respect where you are coming at with this (and many would agree, even within Mormonism, preferring to emphasize the "Exalted" part of the phrase "Exalted Man") . . . I have to say I am the complete opposite even to the point of substituting within this sentence: "But why I must worship a being unlike myself is what I cannot understand or accept . . ." . . . and thankfully don't have to (as a Mormon).

I should mention that I do understand God (or God energy or the spirit or light or life or good) to be invested in all of the multi-metaverse, and I perceive that Heavenly Father is an adept at abiding within (creating with, etc) that life, and we are following him, to do the same. While I could find some support for my thinking in the scriptures, I recognize that how I am conceiving of this is not the expression of Mormon doctrine, as such.

I agree, Maidservant. I can only resonate with what I relate with.

That is why, I think, Jesus is the personification of spirituality - someone we can feel close to, relate with, or feel understood & cared for.

It's easier than an abstraction.

Yet, I wonder if we're pampering ourselves mentally, & thus limiting ourselves spiritually.

Maybe we need to learn to resonate more without such crutches.

I tend to feel most inspired spiritually, when I'm resonating with beauty - love - nature, acts of kindness etc..

Yet, as Einstein said, "I want to know God's thoughts - the rest are details."

Does God need anything to resonate - or is everything spiritual & it's just a question of realizing it?

Edited September 2, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[Maidservant]

I agree, Maidservant. I can only resonate with what I relate with.

That is why, I think, Jesus is the personification of spirituality - someone we can feel close to, relate with, or feel understood & cared for.

It's easier than an abstraction.

Yet, I wonder if we're pampering ourselves mentally, & thus limiting ourselves spiritually.

Maybe we need to learn to resonate more without such crutches.

I tend to feel most inspired spiritually, when I'm resonating with beauty - love - nature, acts of kindness etc..

Yet, as Einstein said, "I want to know God's thoughts - the rest are details."

Does God need anything to resonate - or is everything spiritual & it's just a question of realizing it?

Well, what you've said here has caused me to ponder, and I will turn over your words in my mind. I agree with your saying that everything is spiritual and we just need to realize . . . have our eyes opened to see the kingdom of God that IS already.

What I have come to know in the last couple of years--very recently--is that what I should know to know God IS people; what I should love to love God IS people; what I should hear to hear the word of God IS the stories and struggles of people (that is my scripture). I look out upon the vast earth with all of us living our lives, and I connect with people one by one and see their sufferings and their courages . . . and it takes my breath away and I know I am seeing God and that I need to look no other place.

But that's me . . . and I'm sure I have more to learn.

[mfbukowski]

And the logic of the Bible (in Psalm 19), and the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 11:7) is that the effect of a creation requires a Ceator as it's cause.

Read the passages again.

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

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.)

Of course the word "cause" does not appear in any of those quotes. Those are YOUR conclusions about what they are saying.

You are interpreting.

Scriptures are not philosophical works or works of logic, nor are they intended to be. The entire "first cause" thing was dreamed up by philosophers, not prophets.

I can discuss it with you either way, but the two contexts are totally separate, two entirely different language games. I think it is important that you don't get bogged down in all these details, literally interpreted, and go with the spirit. That is why I didn't fully respond to that other question- you know what I mean I am sure.

The scriptures are often ambiguous, and part of being willing to be guided by the spirit in these things is being willing to acknowledge, and deal with, the ambiguity.

[mfbukowski]

Inquiring:

Think of it this way- we can keep asking "What is the cause of THAT"? again and again without ever getting to a first cause- there is always another question about cause we can invent.

If God was the first cause- why is there a God instead of nothing at all? What caused God? What caused God to create the world ? The thought to create the world? What caused that thought? How does God think? What caused him to desire to create us after floating around eternally self sufficient ?

Is he not self- sufficient? Was he lonely? Was his loneliness the "cause" which caused him to create us?

Did he feel he needed people to worship him?

All these questions are silly of course and just meant to show that one can always ask "What was the cause of THAT?" It is not true that there must be a "first cause" because what we THINK is a "cause" can be seeing as having another earlier "cause".

It is an infinite regress logically- there is always another question we can ask - "Well what caused THAT?"

That to me, is why Mormonism is superior to a "first cause" point of view- because it makes no attempt to even ask such questions.

I think the whole effort starts with a contradiction frankly- the logic behind the first cause argument forces you to change your point of view in the middle of the argument.

It requires you to ask the question - about any real thing in the world- "What was the cause of x", and then encourages you to repeat the question again and again, until you are supposedly to stop asking the question, concluding there must be a "first cause".

Yet the reality is- you can always ask the question ad infinitum. It can become an eternal regress.

Edited September 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Well, what you've said here has caused me to ponder, and I will turn over your words in my mind. I agree with your saying that everything is spiritual and we just need to realize . . . have our eyes opened to see the kingdom of God that IS already.

What I have come to know in the last couple of years--very recently--is that what I should know to know God IS people; what I should love to love God IS people; what I should hear to hear the word of God IS the stories and struggles of people (that is my scripture). I look out upon the vast earth with all of us living our lives, and I connect with people one by one and see their sufferings and their courages . . . and it takes my breath away and I know I am seeing God and that I need to look no other place.

But that's me . . . and I'm sure I have more to learn.

And THIS is one meaning to the LDS notion that God is (a) Man.

In a very real sense what we worship is man(kind) and all that we can be.

I love this church! There is so much here!

Edited September 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I recently got my ham radio license.

Do you know how a vibrating guitar string causes other strings to vibrate at the same frequency- have you ever played with that? There are harmonics based on half the frequency, quarter of the frequency etc- that's why octaves are the same "note"- they are physically harmonics of the given frequency. If you look at a vibrating string, you can see the waves vibrating up and down the string, and see the harmonic points as little "mini-waves" at half and quarter of the vibrating string length. I used to make guitars and one way to figure out where to put the frets is based on the harmonics- starting at half the string length and then working from there, doing the math- or it can actually be done just by observation of those physical harmonics

Sitars have numerous strings which are not played- but whose function is strictly to resonate at certain pitches and give the sitar its distinctive sound. The plucked string vibrates and causes the air around it also to vibrate at the same frequency - and those waves through the air reach the "harmonic" strings and cause them to vibrate at the same frequency, or one of its harmonics.

What I didn't know is that the reason radio works is that the transmitter puts out waves of a certain physical wavelength- electromagnetic waves- which actually cause an antenna which conducts electromagnetic waves- in other words an electrically conductive wire or whatever- to resonate at the given frequency- or its harmonic. And the antenna, not unlike a string, needs to be a certain length which is a harmonic of the radio wavelength in order for the antenna to "resonate". If it is not the right length, or a harmonic of the length, the antenna will not receive the signal because it will not resonate.

So radio really works on a similar principle to the way guitar strings resonate and how we hear the vibrations in our ears- the way we hear language etc.

When I was a crazy hippie, it turns out all that talk about "vibes" had some real physics behind it.

Everybody probably already knows that, but I didn't!

Edited September 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

Inquiring:

Think of it this way- we can keep asking "What is the cause of THAT"? again and again without ever getting to a first cause- there is always another question about cause we can invent.

I trust you will agree that thinking about things like "first cause" and "prime mover" and other such paradox's of eternity to look counter-productively backward to the unknowable past, rather than productively towards building a future. It is a philosophical trap that leads to nowhere--Inquiringmind having a "problem" is a case in point. Not a few naive and misguided ships of faith have unnecessarily wrecked on the shoals of man's philosophy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 2, 2011 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

My problem with Mormon theology is that "God the Father" is not the Cause (unmoved mover) of Existence in the first place. "God the Father" finds himself among eternal spirits, and finds also that he is in possession of greater glory and intelligence than any of the rest. So he "saves" himself first (whatever that means), then sets about planning for the salvation of all other souls. Those who follow this greater intellect can enjoy his glory. But why we must worship a being like ourselves is what I cannot understand or accept....

I think that's a very good description of the orthodox Mormon conception of God, at least as it was taught by Joseph Smith. The Mormon God is not the unmoved mover. In fact, I think most Mormons would agree that there is no unmoved mover in Mormon theology, which makes orthodox Mormonism more materialistic and naturalistic than traditional Christianity. The scientific description of the universe does not require an unmoved mover, either. In that sense, I don't think it is difficult to understand Mormon theology. It is easier to understand an advanced material god, who looks like us and is made of matter, than to understand a god who has been defined so as to be beyond all understanding. But of course, understanding and faith are two different things.

[mfbukowski]

I trust you will agree that thinking about things like "first cause" and "prime mover" and other such paradox's of eternity to look counter-productively backward to the unknowable past, rather than productively towards building a future. It is a philosophical trap that leads to nowhere--Inquiringmind having a "problem" is a case in point. Not a few naive and misguided ships of faith have unnecessarily wrecked on the shoals of man's philosophy.

Agreed, no question about it.

But on the other hand, a few have been just as confused by God's prophets and saved by man's philosophy as well! Isn't that what we are doing here?

Not answering confusion doesn't help anyone!

[mfbukowski]

Anyone can believe in anything you want, as far as I am concerned.

But if you believe in a First Cause- a concept which was invented by a pagan Greek philosopher and modified and adjusted for Catholicism by Aquinas- a Catholic, obviously, and think that is a "better" way of seeing God than God revealed by Joseph Smith, more power to you.

But THAT my friends, has nothing to do with Mormonism.

So take your pick- Mormonism or the First Cause. Because they are not compatible.

That's basically one of the many reasons I joined the church- because I studied the doctrine of First Cause as a Catholic and found it to be......... lacking.