Alvin Plantinga And Universalist Beliefs - What You Think?

[noel00]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19cYABZgoEg&feature=related

I found this youtube video interesting and find as I get older somewhat drawn to this idea

[mfbukowski]

Sounds pretty good to me. Also sounds quite "LDS" in perspective.

I think the idea of God "upholding" reality is more and more convincing the more I think about it. I think as humans we "organize" our own realities- in a very real sense we create our own world-views which really constitute our perceptions and the way we see, and are, in the world. What we know and believe "organizes" our world.

Maybe it is God who holds that all together. Maybe it is his knowledge of us and our relationship to each other and our relationship to the world which constructs our relationships after death. I see it as a form of "social construction" where our interaction between our spirits and God, and others, form the "social" relationship.

Just as what we know here constructs our world, what he knows there constructs all that "exists" there.

Edited December 27, 2011 by mfbukowski

[inquiringmind]

Sounds pretty good to me. Also sounds quite "LDS" in perspective...

I'm very interested in this (and whether it's compatible with an LDS perspective.)

Most LDS seem to believe that some sons of Adam will end up in a condition of eternal torment.

This seems to go along with the idea that we're all uncreated intellgences (that God didn't really bring into existence), and some of us are so bad that we'll never really change (whereas most Christian Universalists believe that souls are brought into existence by a God who wouldn't create an individual He knew would end up eternally damned.)

I'm not sure what uncreated intelligences are, but if they weren't in a state of torment to begin with, it's almost as difficult for me to understand why God wouldn't leave the torment bound ones alone (as it would be for me to understand His creating souls He knew would be damned forever.)

Some have suggested a kind of annihilationism (i.e. that uncreated intelligences aren't really conscious individuals, and the irredeemable will eventually return to their native element), but the problem with that is that the organization of these intelligences would seem to be a wast of God's time.

Why would He bother organizing intelligences that He knew weren't fit for any permanent, conscious existence?

This is one of the difficulties I've had in accepting the restored Gospel.

Plantinga speaks of hoping that "in the end, no one finally says no to God."

Is it possible for a faithful Latter Day Saint to seriously entertain Plantinga's hope?

I can't find it now, but I recently came across a quote from Brigham Young that I found surprising (because I know Cain is considered a son of perdition.)

In speaking of Cain killing his brother (and depriving him of his posterity and priesthood), he says that Cain and his posterity would be the last to receive the blessings of the kingdom.

Leaving aside the priesthood ban (which was removed in 1978, arguably after all other ethnic groups had received the priesthood?), could this imply that in the end, even Cain himself wont "finally say no to God"?

Could it be that in the end, there wont be any sons of perdition?

Joseph F.Smith (the President) said "when a man turns away from the truth, violates the knowledge that he has received, tramples it under his feet, puts Christ again to open shame, denies His atonement, denies the power of the resurrection, denies the miracles that He has wrought for the salvation of the human family, and says in his heart, 'It is not true,' and abides in that denial of the truth, after having received the testimony of the Spirit, he commits the unpardonable sin."

Is it possible for a Latter Day Saint to even hope that in the end (at the last judgement?), no one will abide in that denial of the truth?

Edited December 29, 2011 by inquiringmind

[Calm]

If someone is in eternal torment, it would be a creationof their own built out of regret, envy, pride, rebelliousness, etc. Iow the torment is an internal state. At least this is how most lds I've talked to describe the fate of the SoPs, the only ones doomed to a full state of eternal damnation or separation from God.

I think it likely that there are some lds who interpret the doctrine that every knee bows and tongue confesses the Christ to imply a hope that none experience forever the state of outer darkness....at least those who did not reject their first estates and were born into mortality.

Edited December 29, 2011 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

I'm very interested in this (and whether it's compatible with an LDS perspective.)

Most LDS seem to believe that some sons of Adam will end up in a condition of eternal torment.

This seems to go along with the idea that we're all uncreated intellgences (that God didn't really bring into existence), and some of us are so bad that we'll never really change (whereas most Christian Universalists believe that souls are brought into existence by a God who wouldn't create an individual He knew would end up eternally damned.)

I'm not sure what uncreated intelligences are, but if they weren't in a state of torment to begin with, it's almost as difficult for me to understand why God wouldn't leave the torment bound ones alone (as it would be for me to understand His creating souls He knew would be damned forever.)

Some have suggested a kind of annihilationism (i.e. that uncreated intelligences aren't really conscious individuals, and the irredeemable will eventually return to their native element), but the problem with that is that the organization of these intelligences would seem to be a wast of God's time.

Why would He bother organizing intelligences that He knew weren't fit for any permanent, conscious existence?

This is one of the difficulties I've had in accepting the restored Gospel.

Plantinga speaks of hoping that "in the end, no one finally says no to God."

Is it possible for a faithful Latter Day Saint to seriously entertain Plantinga's hope?

I can't find it now, but I recently came across a quote from Brigham Young that I found surprising (because I know Cain is considered a son of perdition.)

In speaking of Cain killing his brother (and depriving him of his posterity and priesthood), he says that Cain and his posterity would be the last to receive the blessings of the kingdom.

Leaving aside the priesthood ban (which was removed in 1978, arguably after all other ethnic groups had received the priesthood?), could this imply that in the end, even Cain himself wont "finally say no to God"?

Could it be that in the end, there wont be any sons of perdition?

Joseph F.Smith (the President) said "when a man turns away from the truth, violates the knowledge that he has received, tramples it under his feet, puts Christ again to open shame, denies His atonement, denies the power of the resurrection, denies the miracles that He has wrought for the salvation of the human family, and says in his heart, 'It is not true,' and abides in that denial of the truth, after having received the testimony of the Spirit, he commits the unpardonable sin."

Is it possible for a Latter Day Saint to even hope that in the end (at the last judgement?), no one will abide in that denial of the truth?

We have discussed this before; quite often in fact.

As I have said before, I think there are definite problems with the various descriptions we have of the fate of the sons of perdition and in fact we really don't understand it very well.

As I have said before, I wouldn't worry about it. I personally think that eventually there will be no sons of perdition to worry about, for whatever reason. They will suffer the "second death" whatever that means.

Remember that God did not "organize" intelligences- we are co-eternal with him.

Why would He bother organizing intelligences that He knew weren't fit for any permanent, conscious existence?

He didn't organize them at all, they always were, and they have always had agency.

Phillipians 2:10

10 That at the ^aname of Jesus every ^bknee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is ^aLord, to the glory of God the Father.

I don't see any hedges there, it says "every".

[Calm]

I don't see any hedges there, it says "every".

Ha, I knew it.

[Libs]

Loved the video and I do believe universalism is the only reasonable outcome, if there is, indeed, a loving and just God. I do believe we get many chances to go back to God. I even believe reincarnation is a possibility.

Thanks for sharing that, noel.

[supersnail]

Plantinga makes a distinction between universalism and the wish for universal salvation. Plantinga is right to do that, because maybe few would deny anyone the hope of salvation, but "universalism" may be defined as the specific doctrine that everyone will be saved or will eventually be saved.

One thing that impressed me about the Book of Mormon when I first read it is its clear rejection of both universalism and exclusivist views of election. There is the story about Nehor and the story of the Zoramites and the Rameumptom. (I remember sensing the truth of the Book of Mormon because of these stories even though I wasn't sure about the biographical and historical issues involved with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. The claim of some that the Book of Mormon may not be specifically addressing universalism as we understand it today or Calvinism doesn't change the fact that the Book of Mormon has something to say that is relevant to universalism and Calvinism, which are both wrong.)

Alma 1:

4 And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.

5 And it came to pass that he did teach these things so much that many did believe on his words, even so many that they began to support him and give him money.

6 And he began to be lifted up in the pride of his heart, and to wear very costly apparel, yea, and even began to establish a church after the manner of his preaching.

This view isn't restricted to those calling themselves "universalists" today.

Alma 31:

16 Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children; and also thou hast made it known unto us that there shall be no Christ.

17 But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God.

Their words--speaking of universalists particularly--and their demeanor may be pleasing, but they are false, and it's impossible to shoehorn every or any false doctrine to make it fit LDS theology. One could take artistic license with universalism to make it seem consistent with LDS doctrine, but I think the thrust of universalism is at odds with LDS beliefs that what we do in mortal life makes a lasting and significant difference.

Few people will end up as sons of perdition. However, it is also true that relatively few may be saved to the highest level of the celestial kingdom. The LDS view of salvation is not, I think, consistent with the idea that everyone will have eternal life--certainly not as Latter-day Saints understand "eternal life."

Something that universalism and certain doctrines of election have in common is the idea that works ultimately don't matter for salvation. They also involve closely related views of how God supposedly brings His influence to bear upon individuals to ensure their salvation irrespective of agency.

Both univeralism and the doctrine of unconditional election are connected to certain views of the attributes of God. It's notable that Nehor seems to think God's creativity has something to do with everyone supposedly having eternal life. A certain false view of God's omnipotence involving creation ex nihilo underlies both universalism and unconditional election. In this context, it's interesting that Plantinga in the video above alleges to differ with Platonism, but there only on the question of the immortality of the soul. "So I think everything depends on God's constant upholding activity, and if it weren't for that conservation or conservative activity on God's part, the whole world would disappear like a candle flame on a high wind or like a dream upon awakening. So the same would go for the soul." By contrast, LDS theology makes a distinction between intelligences--uncreated and co-eternal with God (and matter)--and spirits.

I'd like to know what Plantinga thinks are the "mechanisms" by which the soul fades away.

[supersnail]

Correction: In the video, Plantinga says "in a high wind," not "on a high wind."

More importantly, Plantinga has used the phrase several times over the years on different occasions. For example, in Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, Plantinga writes (66-67):

"Third, God conserves the world, sustains it in being. Apart from his sustaining hand, our universe--and if there are other universes, the same goes for them--would disappear like a candle flame in a high wind. Descartes and Jonathan Edwards, indeed, thought of this divine sustenance as a matter of re-creation: at every moment God recreates his world. Maybe so, maybe not. The present point is only that God does indeed sustain his world in being, and, apart from that sustaining, supporting activity, the world would simply fail to exist. Some, including Thomas Aquinas, go even further: every causal transaction that takes place is such that God performs a special act of concurring with it; without that divine concurrence, no causal transaction could take place.

The interesting thing about this is that Plantinga is clearly describing typical Christian theism. What Plantinga is saying about "upholding activity" is actually representative of Platonic Christianity, not divergent from it. It's curious that Plantinga in the above video uses the same "like a candle flame in a high wind" simile to express disagreement with the Platonic view of the soul. The whole discussion of sustaining activity in relation to the question of the soul's immortality seems offhand.

Edited December 30, 2011 by supersnail

[mfbukowski]

I think Plantinga is saying that God upholds the universe in a similar way to the way in which we "uphold" and organize our own little subjective worlds- except in his case, God's perceptions understanding upholds the objective universe.

I do not know Plantinga well at all, but this is my sense from what little I have read of him. I do understand Wittgenstein however.

Reformed Epistemology

An influential contemporary rejection of evidentialism is reformed epistemology, due to Wolterstorff (1976) and Plantinga (1983). As Plantinga develops it in his paper (1983), beliefs are warranted without Enlightenment-approved evidence provided they are (a) grounded, and (b) defended against known objections. Such beliefs may then themselves be used as evidence for other beliefs. But what grounding amounts to could be debated. More recently, Plantinga has proposed an account of warrant as proper functioning. This account seems to entail that S's belief that p is grounded in event E if (a) in the circumstances E caused S to believe that p, and (b) S's coming to believe that p was a case of proper functioning (Plantinga 1993b). It should be noted that the term “warrant” used elsewhere in philosophy as a synonym for “justified” (as in “warranted assertibility”) is used by Plantinga to mean that which has to be adjoined to a true belief for it to be knowledge. (See Plantinga 1993a). Accordingly the most pressing criticism of Plantinga's recent position is that it largely ignores the question of justification, or reasonableness which, as Swinburne explicates it (Swinburne 2001) amounts to whether the religious beliefs are probable relative to total evidence.

While the details of grounding might be controversial it may be assumed that reformed epistemologists assert that ordinary religious experiences of awe, gratitude, contrition, etc., ground the beliefs implied by the believer's sincere reports of such experiences, provided they can be said to cause those beliefs. Such grounded beliefs are warranted provided they can be defended against known objections. They can then be used as evidence for further religious beliefs. Thus if religious experience grounds the belief that God has forgiven you for doing what is wrong to other humans beings, then that is evidence for a personal God who acts in a morally upright fashion. For, it can be argued, only such a God would find anything to forgive in the wrongs you do to my fellow human beings.

One difference between reformed epistemology and fideism is that the former requires defence against known objections, such as the Argument from Evil, whereas the latter might dismiss such objections as either irrelevant or, worse, intellectual temptations.

A difference between reformed epistemology and Wittgensteinian fideism is that the former proposes a universal relaxation of the stringent conditions of evidentialism while the latter only proposes a relaxation for the case of religious beliefs.

http://plato.stanfor...n-epistemology/

I had a longer post, but unfortunately lost it. I hate when that happens!

Edited December 31, 2011 by mfbukowski

[supersnail]

I don't want to belabor the point, so anyone can download Warranted Christian Belief, available several places on the web, search for the pertinent paragraph containing "Calvin and Aquinas concur", and decide for themselves whether Alvin Plantinga is particularly favoring LDS theology or supporting any tenet particular to LDS doctrine, or whether Plantinga is not stating an idea peculiar to Platonic theism. One can redefine "Mormonism" to make it seem consistent with Platonic theism or redefine Platonic theism to make it seem consistent with Mormonism or some supposed improvement on or interpretation of Mormonism, but that's something else.

This matters because if it is true that Plantinga hasn't departed from Platonism as much as it might seem, and this fact is ignored, any attempt to harmonize LDS theology with Plantinga's statements about universal salvation risks being superficial at best and theoretically eclectic at worst. Some universalists have themselves viewed their universalism as an improvement on Calvinism, for example. This is plausible because Christian universalism and Calvinism share the same Platonic background. Some of the arguments leading to universalism are similar to Calvinism's arguments related to God's attributes and His relationship to reality and humans. The notion of going beyond traditional Calvinism without fundamentally repudiating Calvinism seems especially relevant to Plantinga. I'm not that familiar with Plantinga's particular Evangelical beliefs, but Plantinga's philosophical and theological commitments cannot be ignored if one is claiming that Plantinga's words support LDS theology or a development on LDS theology--unless one is trying to appropriate a few of that esteemed non-LDS authority's words merely for artistic purposes.

Like others, Plantinga is very knowledgeable and eloquent and has interesting things to say about the Enlightenment and other topics. I agree Plantinga would have something to contribute to a conversation about LDS beliefs. Plantinga refers to Mormonism a few times in Warranted Christian Belief and is aware of some of Blake Ostler's work. My only objection to the 3 sentences Plantinga devotes to Mormonism in a 500+ page book on the basis of Christian belief is that one of these sentences perpetuates an unfortunate misunderstanding of Mormon beliefs: "Perhaps, like some Mormons, I think God himself was created, and add that the world has always existed and was not created." (Evidently, one can speak at the Y, but years later perhaps still not understand the LDS concept of uncreated intelligences or the differences between creating, begetting, and organizing, despite being an eminent American philosopher of religion.) Technically, though, I guess Plantinga is correct that "some Mormons" believe that. Among millions of people claiming to have something to do with Joseph Smith or any other prophet or leader, one could find someone who will believe anything.

(Plantinga's use of "I" there could be confusing out of context. Plantinga is only taking the viewpoint, for the sake of discussion, of those who "believe of God that he exists without being a theist." It is impied that Mormons may not be considered theists. Of course, Platonic theism shouldn't be confused with theism in general. Platonic theists are idolaters. Latter-day Saints worship the true God.)

The doctrine of eternal torment is considered by members of different Christian denominations to be passé or an embarrassing tradition--inconvenient baggage that one would rather not have brought up in polite company. Both Catholics (going beyond the concept of purgatory, for Catholics who will eventually end up in the same heaven for eternity as those not in need of purification) and Protestants (those who have historically opposed organized and theologically respectable universalism) have de-emphasized the doctrine in various ways. Contrary to what one might think, Evangelicals have a particular need to do so because of solifidianism and the question of what happens to people who don't encounter the gospel before dying. Short of denying the doctrine of eternal torment, there are innovations such as "post-mortem evangelism" from Evangelicals that circumvent the problem and lessen the appearance of unkindness to people who fall through the cracks unevangelized. In a somewhat different vein, Plantinga in the linked video speaks of "posthumous chances." Within Evangelicalism, dictates of modern society have led to the emergence of views ranging from evangelical inclusivism to evangelical or so-called exclusivist universalism. It's not surprising at all that Plantinga would embrace the ideal of universal salvation (as opposed to its necessity) and entertain various possibilities, but stop short of endorsing universalism.

I agree there's something wrong about the idea that we either go to heaven or go to hell forever because some threshold of belief or works is or is not met. The universalist response and other responses is to increase the number who can go to heaven without a detour through hell or decrease the severity or finality of hell. The LDS Church differs; it has a doctrine of degrees of heaven--a third thing not recognized by the heaven/hell dichotomy. This doctrine (as well as salvation for the dead and the salvation of children who die before reaching the age of accountability) was present at the beginning of, or very early in, Mormonism and isn't something Mormons assimilated themselves to to make their doctrine more palatable or accommodating to idolaters, pluralists, relativists, and abortionists. Mormons were persecuted because of the doctrine of the degrees of glory. Mainstream acceptance of universalism and universalism-like ideas accompanied by a continued rejection of the LDS doctrine of salvation in degrees with faith, good works, and repentance, has unsavory underpinnings in today's world.

Very few may by consigned to outer darkness (and those who are will end up there by their own actions). However, there is a grave difference between telestial glory and celestial glory, and I have never heard telestial salvation described as something to be aspired to. LDS theology reflects a God who is supremely merciful and simultaneously very morally demanding.

There is a difference between the universalism of historical Universalist churches whose members would find many of today's self-professed Universalists strange, and the popular, theologically vacuous or shallow kind of universalism one finds agreeable because one is living in a cesspool of iniquity and idolatry, but would like to hold onto a pretense of Christianity. The only redeeming value of such universalism is that at least some versions admit the reality of sin and that some or all of us deserve the damnation we aren't going to receive.

There could conceivably be a future Mormon universalism, truly Mormon and truly universalist. (The idea of progression between kingdoms has been cited as a feature of a possible Mormon universalism.) It seems this would require further revelation or at least a rigorous working-out from within the LDS Church relying on the standard works, rather than a syncretization with other traditions, which beneath surface appearances may be philosophically opposed to Mormonism. However, it's not clear why we should consider present LDS theology to be inadequate, or that the concern some have about the consistency of outer darkness with God's love isn't already addressed in LDS theology. Mormonism is already mistakenly labeled universalist by some who are moderately familiar with LDS beliefs. The LDS Church is rightly considered to have one of the widest views of salvation, but that doesn't make that view universalist.

Edited January 5, 2012 by supersnail

[Cobalt-70]

Sounds pretty good to me. Also sounds quite "LDS" in perspective.

I think the idea of God "upholding" reality is more and more convincing the more I think about it. I think as humans we "organize" our own realities- in a very real sense we create our own world-views which really constitute our perceptions and the way we see, and are, in the world. What we know and believe "organizes" our world.

Maybe it is God who holds that all together. Maybe it is his knowledge of us and our relationship to each other and our relationship to the world which constructs our relationships after death. I see it as a form of "social construction" where our interaction between our spirits and God, and others, form the "social" relationship.

Just as what we know here constructs our world, what he knows there constructs all that "exists" there.

I interpret Plantinga's belief of God "upholding" reality, including the human soul, as being quite antithetical to Mormon theology. His is basically expressing the standard Christian view that God creates the universe ex nihilo. He is saying that reality depends, from moment to moment, on God's sustaining will. However, Joseph Smith pretty clearly rejected the ex nihilo doctrine.

The soteriological issue he raises, however, does indeed resonate with Joseph Smith's views. Smith taught that eventually, everyone except the sons of perdition would accept Jesus and go forward to receive their salvation in the kingdoms of glory. Indeed, in the King Follett sermon, Smith might have been saying that everyone, no matter how wicked, could turn around in the afterlife after tormenting themselves for their own sins, and ultimately gain their exaltation. Smith seemed to be saying that the one thing that separates us from our exaltation is knowledge, and that once a person gains the requisite knowledge, he or she becomes a god or goddess.

[Cobalt-70]

Remember that God did not "organize" intelligences- we are co-eternal with him.

According to Abraham 3:22, God did "organize intelligences." But Joseph Smith did not mean in choosing this language that God took used some sort of "intelligence matter" to impregnate the Goddess so that she would give birth to a spirit baby. That view was invented by Brigham Young, as part of the Adam-God doctrine. Abraham 3:22, as understood by Joseph Smith, just means that God gathered and organized a group of lesser, co-eternal spirits, designated their leaders, and provided them with a plan. The "organization" process is described in verses 22-27.

[inquiringmind]

According to Abraham 3:22, God did "organize intelligences." But Joseph Smith did not mean in choosing this language that God took used some sort of "intelligence matter" to impregnate the Goddess so that she would give birth to a spirit baby. That view was invented by Brigham Young, as part of the Adam-God doctrine. Abraham 3:22, as understood by Joseph Smith, just means that God gathered and organized a group of lesser, co-eternal spirits, designated their leaders, and provided them with a plan. The "organization" process is described in verses 22-27.

I would tend to view God's organization of intelligences as a kind of individuation of His own Divine intelligence, and I don't know how "Heavenly Mother" would fit into that.

I have as much problem with the idea that "God took some sort of 'intelligence matter' to impregnate the Goddess so that she would give birth to a spirit baby" as you do, but (if you are LDS) isn't the existence of "Heavenly Mother" an official doctrine of the Church?

Edited January 6, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Cobalt-70]

I would tend to view God's organization of intelligences as a kind of individuation of His own Divine intelligence, and I don't know how "Heavenly Mother" would fit into that.

I have as much problem with the idea that "God took some sort of 'intelligence matter' to impregnate the Goddess so that she would give birth to a spirit baby" as you do, but (if you are LDS) isn't the existence of "Heavenly Mother" an official doctrine of the Church?

I am LDS and I very much like the Heavenly Mother doctrine. My personal preference is roughly what Joseph Smith was teaching in the 1840s, which was an increasingly universalistic and somewhat gnostic. Joseph Smith's theology became excluded from LDS orthodoxy in 1916, when the church officially replaced Brigham Young's Adam-God doctrine with an Elohim-God doctrine developed by Roberts, Talmage, and Widtsoe, but kept the "spirit babies" doctrine as a remnant from Adam-God.

Your view sounds very Gnostic. Many gnostic-oriented Mormons identify the Heavenly Mother with the Holy Spirit, a view that originates in Gnostic writings.

[Calm]

Please define what you mean by "somewhat gnostic" as that is a rather wide and varied category. Is it limited to Heavenly Mother as the Holy Spirit or has it additional details.

And do you see this as a teaching of Joseph Smith? If so, what teachings do you think support this?

Edited January 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[Tarski]

I think Plantinga is saying that God upholds the universe in a similar way to the way in which we "uphold" and organize our own little subjective worlds- except in his case, God's perceptions understanding upholds the objective universe.

Oh so there is an objective universe after all huh?

Gee, I wonder how we get past this person dependent creating of "reality" (why even use the word "reality"?) and get to the project of glimpsing this objective reality that God creates.

Oh wait! That's science isn't it now? You know, atoms, planets, forces and DNA and all that?

To follow up on something I alluded to above; If as you would have it, we create reality by the act of knowing it and if it is subjective, then why even use the word reality? The words "dream" or "delusion" seem better. Pragmatism you say? OK, then "useful delusion".

In fact, it seems the orginal sense of the word "know" has disappeared because of your conflating of espistemology with ontology.

[mfbukowski]

Oh so there is an objective universe after all huh?

Gee, I wonder how we get past this person dependent creating of "reality" (why even use the word "reality"?) and get to the project of glimpsing this objective reality that God creates.

Oh wait! That's science isn't it now? You know, atoms, planets, forces and DNA and all that?

To follow up on something I alluded to above; If as you would have it, we create reality by the act of knowing it and if it is subjective, then why even use the word reality? The words "dream" or "delusion" seem better. Pragmatism you say? OK, then "useful delusion".

In fact, it seems the orginal sense of the word "know" has disappeared because of your conflating of espistemology with ontology.

Well I know you love me, and love to help me with my philosophical endeavors by picking apart every sentence I write.

It is a sign of your true devotion.

But please notice that what I said was "I think PLANTINGA is saying..."

Let me put it logically so you will understand:

I am not Plantinga

Therefore

I am not saying that

But I DID say this:

Sounds pretty good to me. Also sounds quite "LDS" in perspective.

I think the idea of God "upholding" reality is more and more convincing the more I think about it. I think as humans we "organize" our own realities- in a very real sense we create our own world-views which really constitute our perceptions and the way we see, and are, in the world. What we know and believe "organizes" our world.

Maybe it is God who holds that all together. Maybe it is his knowledge of us and our relationship to each other and our relationship to the world which constructs our relationships after death. I see it as a form of "social construction" where our interaction between our spirits and God, and others, form the "social" relationship.

Just as what we know here constructs our world, what he knows there constructs all that "exists" there.

First of all, I was kind of thinking out loud here, which I thought was permitted since it was not an official "Proclamation of Bukowski's Theology". Notice the word "maybe" used a few times.

And what I WAS saying in that speculative post, is that MAYBE the social construction persists PAST DEATH with God as part of the "society" which constitutes the "reality" of the spirit world.

Social construction makes no sense in seeing this way unless "ontologically" we are part of the same "ontology" as God, all human beings.

So in no way was I saying anything about God creating an "objective universe" that is beyond our cultural understanding- I was SPECULATING that God was part of the "society" which creates our socially constituted "reality", especially after we die.

"Objective reality" is socially constituted, and he is part of the "society" which "constitutes".

But I certainly appreciate your devotion to my posts and making me stay on my toes, AND posting about me on the trailer park.

Any publicity is good publicity even if you get it wrong. That one of your stature would even notice me or care, is flattering

Edited January 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

Please define what you mean by "somewhat gnostic" as that is a rather wide and varied category. Is it limited to Heavenly Mother as the Holy Spirit or has it additional details.

And do you see this as a teaching of Joseph Smith? If so, what teachings do you think support this?

I don't think that Joseph Smith ever would have considered the Heavenly Mother to be the Holy Spirit. There is barely evidence that Smith taught of a Heavenly Mother at all, though I think Eliza Snow's claim to have heard that doctrine from him is fairly credible.

It's true that Gnosticism is a very broad field of beliefs. Smith was never actually a Gnostic, so perhaps you might say that he had gnostic beliefs, without the capital "G." For Smith, gnostic ideas were likely channeled through his contacts with Hermeticism and Kabbalism. These can be found within his ideas that humans are coeternal with God; that there is a higher God than the one that created the Earth; that knowledge/intelligence (i.e., gnosis) is key to exaltation and is provided in an initiation rite and through mystical experience; that the creator God is a craftsman of existing matter (demiurge) rather than an ex nihilo creator; and that there is a duality between good and evil, in which one cannot exist without the other.

[sethpayne]

Loved the video and I do believe universalism is the only reasonable outcome, if there is, indeed, a loving and just God. I do believe we get many chances to go back to God. I even believe reincarnation is a possibility.

Thanks for sharing that, noel.

Libs, I completely agree with you about universalism. And I suppose reincarnation is possible although I do think it very unlikely. My wife, being Buddhist, disagress with me on this point, obviously.

[mercyngrace]

Is it possible for a Latter Day Saint to even hope that in the end (at the last judgement?), no one will abide in that denial of the truth?

YES.

[Libs]

Libs, I completely agree with you about universalism. And I suppose reincarnation is possible although I do think it very unlikely. My wife, being Buddhist, disagress with me on this point, obviously.

Thanks, Seth. I like your wife's religion, a lot! I've done a lot of study in eastern philosophies/religions and really love them. I've been most drawn to a sect of Hinduism, which self identifies as Hindu/Christian. I'm very happy there, for now.

[mercyngrace]

I thought this would be an interesting addition to this discussion:

Date: 5 February 1840 (Wednesday Evening)

Location: Washington D.C., USA

Source: History of the Church 4:78-80 (Words of Joseph Smith, 32–34)

Washington, 6th February, 1840.

My Dear Mary:—I went last evening to hear "Joe Smith," the celebrated Mormon, expound his doctrine. I, with several others, had a desire to understand his tenets as explained by himself. He is not an educated man; but he is a plain, sensible, strong minded man. Everything he says, is said in a manner to leave an impression that he is sincere. There is no levity, no fanaticism, no want of dignity in his deportment. He is apparently from forty to forty-five years of age, rather above the middle stature, and what you ladies would call a very good looking man. In his garb there are no peculiarities; his dress being that of a plain, unpretending citizen. He is by profession a farmer, but is evidently well read.

He commenced by saying, that he knew the prejudices which were abroad in the world against him, but requested us to pay no respect to the rumors which were in circulation respecting him or his doctrines. He was accompanied by three or four of his followers. He said, "I will state to you our belief, so far as time will permit." "I believe," said he, "that there is a God, possessing all the attributes ascribed to Him by all Christians of all denominations; that He reigns over all things in heaven and on earth, and that all are subject to His power." He then spoke rationally of the attributes of Divinity, such as foreknowledge, mercy &c., &c. He then took up the Bible. "I believe," said he, "in this sacred volume. In it the 'Mormon' faith is to be found. We teach nothing but what the Bible teaches. We believe nothing, but what is to be found in this book. I believe in the fall of man, as recorded in the Bible; I believe that God foreknew everything, but did not foreordain everything; I deny that foreordain and foreknow is the same thing. He foreordained the fall of man; but all merciful as He is, He foreordained at the same time, a plan for redemption for all mankind. I believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and that He died for the sins of all men, who in Adam had fallen." He then entered into some details, the result of which tended to show his total unbelief of what is termed original sin. He believes that it is washed away by the blood of Christ, and that it no longer exists. As a necessary consequence, he believes that we are all born pure and undefiled. That all children dying at an early age (say eight years) not knowing good from evil, were incapable of sinning; and that all such assuredly go to heaven. "I believe," said he, "that a man is a moral, responsible, free agent; that although it was foreordained he should fall, and be redeemed, yet after the redemption it was not foreordained that he should again sin. In the Bible a rule of conduct is laid down for him; in the Old and New Testaments the law by which he is to be governed, may be found. If he violates that law, he is to be punished for the deeds done in the body.

I believe that God is eternal. That He had no beginning, and can have no end. Eternity means that which is without beginning or end. I believe that the soul is eternal; and had no beginning; it can have no end. Here he entered into some explanations, which were so brief that I could not perfectly comprehend him. But the idea seemed to be that the soul of man, the spirit, had existed from eternity in the bosom of Divinity; and so far as he was intelligible to me, must ultimately return from whence it came. He said very little of rewards and punishments; but one conclusion, from what he did say, was irresistible—he contended throughout, that everything which had a beginning must have an ending; and consequently if the punishment of man commenced in the next world, it must, according to his logic and belief have an end.

During the whole of his address, and it occupied more than two hours, there was no opinion or belief that he expressed, that was calculated, in the slightest degree, to impair the morals of society, or in any manner to degrade and brutalize the human species. There was much in his precepts, if they were followed, that would soften the asperities of man towards man, and that would tend to make him a more rational being than he is generally found to be. There was no violence, no fury, no denunciation. His religion appears to be the religion of meekness, lowliness, and mild persuasion.

Towards the close of his address, he remarked that he had been represented as pretending to be a Savior, a worker of miracles, etc. All this was false. He made no such pretensions. He was but a man, he said; a plain, untutored man; seeking what he should do to be saved. He performed no miracles. He did not pretend to possess any such power. He closed by referring to the Mormon Bible, which he said, contained nothing inconsistent or conflicting with the Christian Bible, and he again repeated that all who would follow the precepts of the Bible, whether Mormon or not, would assuredly be saved.

Throughout his whole address, he displayed strongly a spirit of charity and forbearance. The Mormon Bible, he said, was communicated to him, direct from heaven. If there was such a thing on earth, as the author of it, then he (Smith) was the author; but the idea that he wished to impress was, that he had penned it as dictated by God.

I have taken some pains to explain this man's belief, as he himself explained it. I have done so because it might satisfy your curiosity, and might be interesting to you, and some of your friends. I have changed my opinion of the Mormons. They are an injured and much-abused people. Of matters of faith, you know I express no opinion.

Affectionately your husband,

M. L. Davis.

[inquiringmind]

I believe that God is eternal. That He had no beginning, and can have no end. Eternity means that which is without beginning or end. I believe that the soul is eternal; and had no beginning; it can have no end. Here he entered into some explanations, which were so brief that I could not perfectly comprehend him. But the idea seemed to be that the soul of man, the spirit, had existed from eternity in the bosom of Divinity; and so far as he was intelligible to me, must ultimately return from whence it came. He said very little of rewards and punishments; but one conclusion, from what he did say, was irresistible—he contended throughout, that everything which had a beginning must have an ending; and consequently if the punishment of man commenced in the next world, it must, according to his logic and belief have an end.

Thank you Cate.

That is interesting.

But there's one thing I've never understood about this whole idea of everything that had a beginning having to have an end.

How does this idea leave room for any permanent change or progress?

Unless time involves some kind of Mobius loop, and we all had the resurrected bodies we end up with when we started out in the bosom of Deity, what would the axiom that "everything that had a beginning must have an ending" mean in regards to resurrection, exaltation, and eternal marriage?

If our glorified, resurrected bodies are given us at a point in time, don't those bodies (or that state of existence) have a beginning?

Does that mean that those bodies (or that state of existence) will have to have an end?

If every marriage sealed in a Temple had a beginning (i.e. Joe and Jane weren't always joined together, from all eternity, but really sealed for the first time in the Temple), does that mean that their union "must have an end"?

I know LDS doctrine is that such things (which would seem to have beginnings) can last forever, so how can we not question whether Joseph really said (or meant, or was properly understood to say) "everything that had a beginning must have an end"?

I don't see how that logic can possibly hold true, but I'm interested in how you and others see it.

Edited January 8, 2012 by inquiringmind

[mercyngrace]

Thank you Cate.

That is interesting.

But there's one thing I've never understood about this whole idea of everything that had a beginning having to have an end.

How does this idea leave room for any permanent change or progress?

Unless time involves some kind of Mobius loop, and we all had the resurrected bodies we end up with when we started out in the bosom of Deity, what would the axiom that "everything that had a beginning must have an ending" mean in regards to resurrection, exaltation, and eternal marriage?

If our glorified, resurrected bodies are given us at a point in time, don't those bodies (or that state of existence) have a beginning?

Does that mean that those bodies (or that state of existence) will have to have an end?

If every marriage sealed in a Temple had a beginning (i.e. Joe and Jane weren't always joined together, from all eternity, but really sealed for the first time in the Temple), does that mean that their union "must have an end"?

I know LDS doctrine is that such things (which would seem to have beginnings) can last forever, so how can we not question whether Joseph really said (or meant, or was properly understood to say) "everything that had a beginning must have an end"?

I don't see how that logic can possibly hold true, but I'm interested in how others see it.

Since Joseph Smith taught that God and man (his spirit/intelligence) are eternal, he obviously didn't mean that those would have an end. I see this statement as referring to the various states of progression, which like rungs on a ladder, are finite individually but together allow for continued mobility.

As for relationships, those are maintained even as we progress through these finite states. Consider that we had a relationship with God before he "formed us in the belly", we continue to have a relationship with Him here as mortals, and we anticipate the promised relationship described in scripture to continue with Him in a post-mortal life. In similar fashion, the same sociality that exists among us here (and existed among us prior to mortality in some fashion) will remain intact after physical death albeit it coupled with eternal glory.