Mormonism'S Anthropomorphic God: Why Is This A Problem For Other Theists?

[mfbukowski]

How long does it take to say whether you personally believe God is omniscient? Or are you trying to decide?

Log is certainly capable of answering but I wonder if you would be so kind as to first answer my question above defining precisely what "omniscient" means.

If God knows every "thing" please tell me how if he knows exactly how many "things" he has not yet created, and how he could know that the number was accurate.

A simple yes or no will be fine.

Edited March 21, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

How come we cannot add rep points to post 305?

[mfbukowski]

I'll take that as a No. And frankly, if God isn't already omniscient, he never will be, as the potential pool of knowable things is increasing exponentially.

I'm really glad you used this terminology.

Again, I would repeat my question. Sorry I am slow getting through this thread

[mfbukowski]

Wade,

If to be a completely loving being is to be a God, then with that stipulated definition I hope by the grace of God to become a "God" myself one day. But of course that isn't the issue.

[Zakuska]

Log is certainly capable of answering but I wonder if you would be so kind as to first answer my question above defining precisely what "omniscient" means.

If God knows every "thing" please tell me how if he knows exactly how many "things" he has not yet created, and how he could know that the number was accurate.

A simple yes or no will be fine.

I vote for omnicient as being unseperably linked to "all-seeing"... God knows everything we do, or have done. When we are Judged there is, nor will there be any hiding of anything from him. He searches the heart and knows all about us. Now that does not preclude the fact that God can learn how to create something new.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Zakuska

[Log]

Log,

The LDS Church disagrees with you. Its official website lists numerous scriptures that it claims support the doctrine.

The Church does not disagree with me. The devil is, as always, in the details.

Or, it could simply indicate that I disagree with your minimalist standard for determining what is official doctrine. You know, bud, it's possible for someone to disagree with you and still have intellectual credibility.

My position on what official doctrine is happens to be the position of the Church, BCSpace notwithstanding. That only is doctrine which has been canonized, or which has been officially declared or proclaimed jointly by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. How then can you possibly disagree with me on what constitutes official doctrine within the Church and retain intellectual integrity?

Why don't I just put some beliefs in your mouth from your evangelical coreligionists? Say... Vox Day's view on what he terms voliscience? (A: Because it would not reflect your actual beliefs and would therefore be a straw-man.)

Edited March 21, 2012 by Log

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

As I said to Log, I'm not going to get embroiled in an extended debate defining and defending a doctrine that even the LDS Church teaches repeatedly on its official website, in its general conferences, and in its curriculum manuals.

If you want help understanding the doctrine of omniscience philosophically, I suggest you ask some Mormon philosophers.

[Log]

Rob:

You cannot have it both ways. You've claimed omniscience is somehow incompatible with theosis. You really are bound to define your terms and defend your conclusions. At a minimum, you have to 1. define omniscience, and 2. show that omniscience as you define it is the official doctrine of the Church, and 3. show that omniscience is logically incompatible with the Church's official doctrine of theosis.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Log

[wenglund]

I prefer to let Dan speak for himself. As for the issue, I am not concerned with maverick Mormons who redefine exaltation to mean merely the attainment of perfect moral character. I am rather more concerned with traditional-minded Mormons who believe that exaltation means the attainment of divine metaphysical powers such as omnipotence.

I have seen some creative excuses for not engaging what I have said, but this is by far the most comically presumptuous and yet at the same time utterly clueless evasive moves in recent memory. It sure fooled me. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

You wrote:

You cannot have it both ways. You've claimed omniscience is somehow incompatible with theosis. You really are bound to define your terms and defend your conclusions. At a minimum, you have to 1. define omniscience, and 2. show that omniscience as you define it is the official doctrine of the Church, and 3. show that omniscience is logically incompatible with the Church's official doctrine of theosis.

First of all, you're in no position to lecture me about what I am bound to do. You have repeatedly and unjustifiably impugned my "intellectual integrity." You have complained about me not responding to some unknown open theist's arguments while refusing to answer a simple yes or no question from me about your own belief. I am not bound to comply with your demands.

Second, I have not claimed that omniscience is incompatible with theosis. You are abusing a term in Greek Christian theology by assuming that it is descriptive of the LDS doctrine of eternal progression. It isn't.

Third, what I said was that in orthodox (little o) Christian theology God is eternally omniscient and so does not need to learn anything. My comment was therefore obviously a statement about orthodox theology, not Mormon theology.

Fourth, if one denies omniscience, as you apparently do but won't admit to doing, then that reduces the bar for creatures to become beings of the same ontological nature and abilities as God. If even God does not know everything, then lack of omniscience would obviously not be a barrier to creatures becoming Gods of the same type as God. Of course, there might be other problems. But if the traditional, orthodox concept of God is correct, then creatures cannot possibly become Gods of the same kind of being as God. So the issue really comes down to what one thinks is the nature of God.

Fifth, I think you already know how I define omniscience. It is God's attribute of knowing everything, i.e., knowing all truth about all reality past, present, and future.

Sixth, I have already demonstrated to reasonable minds that the LDS Church teaches omniscience. I have absolutely zero interest in debating you as to what constitutes "official" LDS doctrine. I don't care. The LDS Church teaches omniscience in its official publications, in its general conferences, and on its official website. If that doesn't pass the Log Official Doctrine Standard, why should I care? I don't. The LDS Church does actually teach omniscience, as I more than adequately documented.

Seventh, traditional Mormons accept omniscience and also accept that human beings can become Gods that are also omniscient, as the LDS Church teaches (e.g., Gospel Principles [2009], 277). I don't think this is possible or even that it makes sense, but I don't expect Mormons to agree with me. But I'm certainly not going to debate the point with someone who says he is a Mormon but does not accept omniscience at all. Go debate it with traditional Mormons who actually accept what the LDS Church teaches.

[selek1]

First of all, you're in no position to lecture me about what I am bound to do.

Sage advice. Would that Bowman actually practiced what he preaches and extended the same courtesy to the Mormons.

You have repeatedly and unjustifiably impugned my "intellectual integrity."

Given that the justifiable reasons to impugn Bowman's intellectual integrity are legion, to do so "unjustifiably' borders on a miracle rivaling feeding five thousand with only seven loaves of bread and a pair of small fish.

Well done, Log.

Of course, given that victimhood is Bowman's second favorite position, there might be less to this purported "offense" than meets the eye....

Edited March 22, 2012 by selek1

[Log]

Log,

You wrote:

First of all, you're in no position to lecture me about what I am bound to do. You have repeatedly and unjustifiably impugned my "intellectual integrity." You have complained about me not responding to some unknown open theist's arguments while refusing to answer a simple yes or no question from me about your own belief. I am not bound to comply with your demands.

Rob, you have yet to answer my question: have you, Rob, stopped beating your wife yet? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Second, I have not claimed that omniscience is incompatible with theosis. You are abusing a term in Greek Christian theology by assuming that it is descriptive of the LDS doctrine of eternal progression. It isn't.

I guess I misunderstood this:

I am rather more concerned with traditional-minded Mormons who believe that exaltation means the attainment of divine metaphysical powers such as omnipotence.

Actually, I doubt I misunderstood that.

Theosis is a term used outside of Greek Christianity, FYI.

Third, what I said was that in orthodox (little o) Christian theology God is eternally omniscient and so does not need to learn anything. My comment was therefore obviously a statement about orthodox theology, not Mormon theology.

You left off that qualifier (orthodox Christian theology) in your statement which I cited.

Fourth, if one denies omniscience, as you apparently do but won't admit to doing, then that reduces the bar for creatures to become beings of the same ontological nature and abilities as God. If even God does not know everything, then lack of omniscience would obviously not be a barrier to creatures becoming Gods of the same type as God. Of course, there might be other problems. But if the traditional, orthodox concept of God is correct, then creatures cannot possibly become Gods of the same kind of being as God. So the issue really comes down to what one thinks is the nature of God.

I agree with your conclusion.

Fifth, I think you already know how I define omniscience. It is God's attribute of knowing everything, i.e., knowing all truth about all reality past, present, and future.

There are other, hidden premises, but yes, I most certainly do know how you define omniscience - at least, I think I do. However, to avoid straw-man argumentation, it would help if you spelled it out in full detail. For example, do you believe that man has libertarian free will? If you do, then that needs to be spelled out because in context, omniscience even with the descriptors you employ above means something other than what someone who denies man libertarian free will would mean by omniscience.

Sixth, I have already demonstrated to reasonable minds that the LDS Church teaches omniscience.

You have done no such thing. What you have done is demonstrate that many members of the LDS Church believe and teach omniscience. That does not equate to "the LDS Church teaches omniscience." To support this, I simply note that the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, formally affiliated with the Church (Drs. Peterson or Hamblin can correct me if I am mistaken), have published articles in which the notion that "the Church teaches omniscience" is specifically denied.

I have absolutely zero interest in debating you as to what constitutes "official" LDS doctrine.

Because I'm correct on what constitutes "official" LDS doctrine, and you wish it was other than that.

I don't care. The LDS Church teaches omniscience in its official publications, in its general conferences, and on its official website. If that doesn't pass the Log Official Doctrine Standard, why should I care? I don't. The LDS Church does actually teach omniscience, as I more than adequately documented.

No, the Church does not. That many teach it, in various callings, does not make it "official" LDS doctrine. The Church is not coextensive with its teachers, neither are its "official" doctrines coextensive with the views of its teachers.

Seventh, traditional Mormons accept omniscience and also accept that human beings can become Gods that are also omniscient, as the LDS Church teaches (e.g., Gospel Principles [2009], 277).

Some do. So what?

I don't think this is possible or even that it makes sense, but I don't expect Mormons to agree with me.

I believe I fully understand at least part of your view and why it wouldn't make sense. However, in my view, omniscience as I believe you define it - and I can't know, because you have chosen not to define it fully - is not the problem, but the notion that God is the immaterial, trancendent, ground of all being causes the problems. After all, if God is the ground of all being, it is a contradiction to assert man could become Gods. Why would possession of information be a bar to Godhood, in any scenario?

But I'm certainly not going to debate the point with someone who says he is a Mormon but does not accept omniscience at all. Go debate it with traditional Mormons who actually accept what the LDS Church teaches.

Tu quoque with a vengeance!

Edited March 22, 2012 by Log

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

You wrote:

Rob, you have yet to answer my question: have you, Rob, stopped beating your wife yet? A simple yes or no will suffice.

You know I will not answer such a fallacious question. I assume you are trying to make a point, perhaps that you think my question to you is similarly fallacious. However, it clearly is not. Asking you if you accept a well-known doctrine is not committing the many-questions fallacy.

You wrote:

What you have done is demonstrate that many members of the LDS Church believe and teach omniscience. That does not equate to "the LDS Church teaches omniscience." To support this, I simply note that the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, formally affiliated with the Church (Drs. Peterson or Hamblin can correct me if I am mistaken), have published articles in which the notion that "the Church teaches omniscience" is specifically denied.

CFR.

By the way, since you bring this up, I would remind you that according to LDS Church spokesman Michael Purdy, "BYU faculty members do not speak for the church."

I would also point out that your claim that all I have shown is that "many members" believe omniscience is simply false. Quoting statements from official LDS Church publications including its official website, and statements from LDS Church presidents in general conference, proves far more than that "many Mormons" believe something, and you know it. It truly is fascinating that in your unfettered imagination the opinions of BYU professors in an academic think-tank represent official LDS doctrine but scores of statements from LDS prophets, apostles, and curriculum manuals do not.

[mfbukowski]

I vote for omnicient as being unseperably linked to "all-seeing"... God knows everything we do, or have done. When we are Judged there is, nor will there be any hiding of anything from him. He searches the heart and knows all about us. Now that does not preclude the fact that God can learn how to create something new.

Sounds good to me!

[Log]

Log,

You wrote:

You know I will not answer such a fallacious question. I assume you are trying to make a point, perhaps that you think my question to you is similarly fallacious. However, it clearly is not. Asking you if you accept a well-known doctrine is not committing the many-questions fallacy.

Yes, actually, in context, your question to me is not just similarly fallacious, but exactly that fallacious. So, just as you refuse to tell me whether you have stopped beating your wife yet with a simple yes or no, I refuse to tell you whether I personally believe in omniscience with a simple yes or no. I actually fully answered your question, by defining the term, and you chose to put words in my mouth. So much for integrity.

CFR.

By the way, since you bring this up, I would remind you that according to LDS Church spokesman Michael Purdy, "BYU faculty members do not speak for the church."

Don't be lazy; the Neal A. Maxwell Institute's writings are available at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/, and you can use Google to search the site. And, since I noted that the proclamations and declarations of the united First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, combined with canonized scripture, DO speak for the Church, perhaps you would be so kind as to find that proclamation which says the Church "officially" teaches omniscience as you define it?

I would also point out that your claim that all I have shown is that "many members" believe omniscience is simply false. Quoting statements from official LDS Church publications including its official website, and statements from LDS Church presidents in general conference, proves far more than that "many Mormons" believe something, and you know it.

You again insist that you know what the Church "officially" teaches better than I do. Integrity, wherefore art thou?

It truly is fascinating that in your unfettered imagination the opinions of BYU professors in an academic think-tank represent official LDS doctrine but scores of statements from LDS prophets, apostles, and curriculum manuals do not.

I find this bit of misrepresentation on your part to be less than fascinating.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

As I said to Log, I'm not going to get embroiled in an extended debate defining and defending a doctrine that even the LDS Church teaches repeatedly on its official website, in its general conferences, and in its curriculum manuals.

If you want help understanding the doctrine of omniscience philosophically, I suggest you ask some Mormon philosophers.

With all due respect, it is clear you cannot answer my questions. Omniscience, the way you use the term, makes no sense.

Edited March 22, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Rob:

You cannot have it both ways. You've claimed omniscience is somehow incompatible with theosis. You really are bound to define your terms and defend your conclusions. At a minimum, you have to 1. define omniscience, and 2. show that omniscience as you define it is the official doctrine of the Church, and 3. show that omniscience is logically incompatible with the Church's official doctrine of theosis.

Agreed.

[mfbukowski]

I have seen some creative excuses for not engaging what I have said, but this is by far the most comically presumptuous and yet at the same time utterly clueless evasive moves in recent memory. It sure fooled me. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Agreed

Again, he knows our beliefs better than we do.

[mfbukowski]

Fifth, I think you already know how I define omniscience. It is God's attribute of knowing everything, i.e., knowing all truth about all reality past, present, and future.

I really have no understanding what that means. Just a few words that need definition there- I suppose we could limit the present conversation to "truth" and "reality".

I suppose that means he knows nothing about things that are not "real" or that haven't been created yet. Does he know about "things" which are false?

[Vance]

Does He know how to create a rock so large that He doesn't know how to move it?

A simple yes or no answer will do.

[mfbukowski]

And if God does not know about things which are not real, how did he create everything, since it was not "real" before he created it?

This is the kind of nonsense Rob's definition of "omniscience" engenders.

[wenglund]

Agreed

Again, he knows our beliefs better than we do.

He is of that rare breed who are fundamentalist and dogmatic about his own faith, and ours as well. I should have learned long ago that exchanges of ideas with such people is mission impossible.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 22, 2012 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

I hope you boys are having fun, ridiculing a doctrine taught by numerous Mormon prophets and apostles, taught in your curriculum manuals, referenced by official LDS publications from over a hundred passages throughout the standard works, and repeatedly affirmed in your general conferences. You can pretend all you like that you are merely criticizing the belief of one of those detested anti-Mormons, but honest people know better.

[wenglund]

I hope you boys are having fun, ridiculing a doctrine taught by numerous Mormon prophets and apostles, taught in your curriculum manuals, referenced by official LDS publications from over a hundred passages throughout the standard works, and repeatedly affirmed in your general conferences. You can pretend all you like that you are merely criticizing the belief of one of those detested anti-Mormons, but honest people know better.

CFR that we are ridiculing doctrine taught by numerous Mormons and apostles.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

CFR that we are ridiculing doctrine taught by numerous Mormons and apostles.

Already done that. The doctrine is God's omniscience, and the documentation demonstrating that the doctrine is taught by numerous Mormon prophets and apostles was provided earlier in this thread.