Plato'S Demiurge

[dtorge26]

I'm sorry you're frustrated with me M. I know I keep pounding this same point...but it's the only one I've got. I don't have your acquired philosophy knowledge.

If something is eternal, it cannot change. If you are going to take an object and mechanically add or subtract things/acquired knowledge from it, you must have a starting point. It cannot be defined by its knowledge....It must be something other. An electron is an electron.....it will never be anything different. It will never be greater or lesser than every other electron.

So, a god is greater *because* it has more knowledge? *When* did god gain his first bit of knowledge that then put him an iota above his counterparts? Before he built his first planet, before he was first mortal, before he was born into a spirit body, before he was an intelligence...There is no before intelligence. He must have come as-is un-created and special....HOW? A roll of the dice? The farther back this goes the more it loses both mechanics and intelligence.

Not all students walk out of the same classroom having gained the same amount of knowledge.

[inquiringmind]

No, the unlimited probabilistic resources would only explain why the universe improbably had the constants necessary to produce life. Events within the universe, such as your testimony experience, would still have to be explained by appeal to finite causes. In other words, MWI eliminates the design argument, but not the testimony argument, which is what's supposed to be the basis of LDS faith anyway.

But how can you separate the testimony argument from the design argument, when the design argument is found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and General Conference talks (like Richard G. Scott's yesterday)?

[mfbukowski]

I'm sorry you're frustrated with me M. I know I keep pounding this same point...but it's the only one I've got. I don't have your acquired philosophy knowledge.

If something is eternal, it cannot change. If you are going to take an object and mechanically add or subtract things/acquired knowledge from it, you must have a starting point. It cannot be defined by its knowledge....It must be something other. An electron is an electron.....it will never be anything different. It will never be greater or lesser than every other electron.

So, a god is greater *because* it has more knowledge? *When* did god gain his first bit of knowledge that then put him an iota above his counterparts? Before he built his first planet, before he was first mortal, before he was born into a spirit body, before he was an intelligence...There is no before intelligence. He must have come as-is un-created and special....HOW? A roll of the dice? The farther back this goes the more it loses both mechanics and intelligence.

Sorry for sounding frustrated. The problem is that language itself gets us mixed up.

Why do you think for something to be eternal it cannot change? Have you heard of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus? He based his entire philosophy on the idea that the only thing eternal WAS in fact change. He drew an analogy to a great river- think of the Mississippi maybe- (of course we know it is not eternal, but this is an analogy)- for at least us, in our lifetimes, the Mississippi IS for all practical purposes "eternal" and yet it changes constantly- every leaf that goes down the river, every storm which changes its course etc- it is constantly changing but yet "eternal".

The idea that something cannot be eternal unless it is unchanging was dreamed up by other Greeks- most specifically Pythagoras Parmenides and Plato- and in my opinion and that of many others, they were wrong. Heraclitus was too obscure for most people to understand- he was a bad writer- and unfortunately Plato's ideas became more influential and then heavily influenced Christianity.

You might want to check into something called "process philosophy" and/or "process theology" to see that there are other ways of looking at this

http://www.iep.utm.edu/heraclit/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology

Since all of this is metaphysical conjecture anyway, and not important for anything, I give you permission to dream up your own version of why God progressed or didn't, and I reserve the right to dream up my own ideas about it as well.

None of this is verifiable, nor as we LDS would say, is important for our salvation, so we can each come up with as many stories as seem reasonable to us about such things. My advice is that in religious matters it is unwise to take anything too literally- that doesn't mean it is "false" just that we cannot verify any of it anyway, so why be dogmatic?

[mfbukowski]

But how can you separate the testimony argument from the design argument, when the design argument is found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and General Conference talks (like Richard G. Scott's yesterday)?

Chris is speaking scientifically. You cannot prove religious things scientifically. What he is saying is that in his opinion, the design argument as a scientific theory can be separated from the mystical religious experience of God speaking to people and receiving a "testimony". Science cannot prove or disprove God's existence- so what you think about God and your testimony experience has nothing to do with the scientific discussion for or against design.

[inquiringmind]

No, the unlimited probabilistic resources would only explain why the universe improbably had the constants necessary to produce life. Events within the universe, such as your testimony experience, would still have to be explained by appeal to finite causes. In other words, MWI eliminates the design argument, but not the testimony argument, which is what's supposed to be the basis of LDS faith anyway.

But how can you separate the testimony argument from the design argument, when the design argument is found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and General Conference talks (like Richard G. Scott's yesterday)?

I used to struggle with MWI, but its making more sense to me the more I consider it. And it does provide a possible bridge between the scientific and religious (Mormon) view of a ground of all being. If MWI creates slices within a pie which defines all things which can possibly exist, then I prefer to consider only the slices which result in laws of physics favorable to life. If there are slices favorable to the emergence of life, then one must consider that some slices should also be favorable to the emergence of God. As a believing LDS, I think we are located in such a slice (or range of slices)

But if God emerged through an undirected process of evolution, an explosion in the print shop produced a dictionary.

That would mean that Richard G. Scott's remarks at general conference yesterday were way off the mark (as are the passages in the Bible and the Book of Mormon that say creation points to a Creator.)

Well, I didn't watch conference and I don't really know anything about Elder Scott. But one of the appealing features of the Many Worlds Interpretation is that it essentially allows for a potentially infinite number of parallel print shop explosions, one of which is bound to produce a dictionary.

I don't think that analogy holds.

For a single explosion in a print shop to produce a dictionary, the type sets would have to be propelled with only enough force to make ink impressions on the paper, all the pages would have to be produced simultaneously (even though a press normally runs only a limitted number of pages at a time), and the paper pages would have to survive the explosion (and be bond?)

I think it could be argued that that would be impossible in any possible universe.

Edited April 2, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Cobalt-70]

....In Neo-Platonism, which informed a lot of medieval mysticism, you get both views, but at different levels of the system. Our spirits are created out of God ("divine sparks"), but the material world is created out of nothing (if that's the right way to characterize a non-real shadow of the divine mind).....

I'm not sure that they understood the "divine sparks" as being "created." They were uncreated parts or aspects of God, and thus were co-eternal with God, like Joseph Smith's principle of "intelligence."

[mfbukowski]

Inquiring

Don't worry about it. No one ever said that apostles were infallible on scientific matters. Honestly, it's no big deal.

It's a bad analogy- the Big bang was nothing like an explosion in a print shop.

[Cobalt-70]

And incidentally, Cobalt, I would love to see ONE quote from Joseph using the terminology "The Ultimate Ground of Being". Good luck on that one. He never believed in such nonsense.

Smith never used those words, and you wouldn't expect that he would speak in those more philosophical terms. However, he did use phrases like "the first principles of man" and "the pure principles of element." (King Follett sermon)

[Chris Smith]

I'm not sure that they understood the "divine sparks" as being "created." They were uncreated parts or aspects of God, and thus were co-eternal with God, like Joseph Smith's principle of "intelligence."

Generally speaking, Neo-Platonists regarded the realm of Soul as a sort of extension or emanation of God which was a sort of diluted form of Being (by virtue of having properties such as form and number that are not intrinsically part of the One). I don't know how much sense terms like "created" or "uncreated" even make in this context. Which is why I said the terms are a pain in the butt. (Or maybe it's just Neo-Platonism that's a pain in the butt...)

[Chris Smith]

Smith never used those words, and you wouldn't expect that he would speak in those more philosophical terms. However, he did use phrases like "the first principles of man" and "the pure principles of element." (King Follett sermon)

He also said that Adam "emenated [sic] and came down from God," which is very Neo-Platonic language.

And D&C 93:10 says "all things were made by him, and through him, and of him." "Of" him?

Edited April 2, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Cobalt-70]

Yeah. I mean, a lot of LDS authors have emphasized that instead of "creating" the spirits, God "organized" the spirits out of raw intelligence. But there's some real question whether Joseph even taught that. "Organized" can mean a few different things in LDS scripture. There's the mechanical organization of matter, but there's also the social organization of people into councils and so forth. So when the BoA says "the intelligences were organized before the world was," is it talking about a mechanical or a social organization? Here's what Joseph said in a couple of his discourses:

1841: "At the first organization in heaven we were all present and saw the Savior chosen and appointed, and the plan of salvation made and we sanctioned it."

1842: "The spirits of men are eternal. ... They are organized according to the priesthood."

I think it's clear from the Book of Abraham context that the "organization" was a social organization, including the foreordination of the "noble and great ones." In his King Follett sermon, Smith was very clear that spirits cannot be "created." The idea of "spirit births" was an invention of Brigham Young as part of his Adam-God doctrine, and was one of the few elements of Adam-God carried over into 20th century Mormon theology.

[inquiringmind]

I think it's clear from the Book of Abraham context that the "organization" was a social organization, including the foreordination of the "noble and great ones." In his King Follett sermon, Smith was very clear that spirits cannot be "created." The idea of "spirit births" was an invention of Brigham Young as part of his Adam-God doctrine, and was one of the few elements of Adam-God carried over into 20th century Mormon theology.

Are you LDS?

[mfbukowski]

Are you LDS?

Everyone asks him that and he answers in the affirmative. But that is not clear from his posts, in my opinion

[Cobalt-70]

Citations, please.

Here's a good article by Thomas Alexander (now a BYU emeritus professor) that describes how post-Adam-God theology came into existence as the result of Talmage, Widtsoe, and Roberts: https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/022-24-33.pdf (see particularly page 28). I'd also recommend a short book, if you can get access to it: Widmer, Kurt (2000), Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1830–1915, Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland.

[Log]

Here's a good article by Thomas Alexander (now a BYU emeritus professor) that describes how post-Adam-God theology came into existence as the result of Talmage, Widtsoe, and Roberts: https://www.sunstone...s/022-24-33.pdf (see particularly page 28). I'd also recommend a short book, if you can get access to it: Widmer, Kurt (2000), Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1830–1915, Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland.

Thanks.

[Chris Smith]

The idea of "spirit births" was an invention of Brigham Young as part of his Adam-God doctrine, and was one of the few elements of Adam-God carried over into 20th century Mormon theology.

According to Charles Harrell, the doctrine of spirit birth actually arose almost immediately after Joseph Smith's death. The evidence he cites is a bit vague as to whether there was an actual birth involved, but clearly there emerged the idea of spirits being organized from pre-existing matter, as Joseph Lee Robinson reported in 1845:

Some of the Elders said that the Prophet Joseph Smith should have said that our spirits existed eternally with God, the question arose then, How is God the Father of our spirits? I wondered, studied and prayed over it for I did want to know how it could be. I inquired of several of the brethren how that could be? a father and son and the son as old as the father. There was not a person that could or that would even try to explain that matter, but it came to pass that in time a vision was opened, the voice of the spirit came to me saying: that all matter was eternal, that it never had a beginning and that it should never have an end and that the spirits of all men were organized of a pure material or matter upon the principle of male and female.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Cobalt-70]

According to Charles Harrell, the doctrine of spirit birth actually arose almost immediately after Joseph Smith's death. The evidence he cites is a bit vague as to whether there was an actual birth involved, but clearly there emerged the idea of spirits being organized from pre-existing matter, as Joseph Lee Robinson reported in 1845:

Some of the Elders said that the Prophet Joseph Smith should have said that our spirits existed eternally with God, the question arose then, How is God the Father of our spirits? I wondered, studied and prayed over it for I did want to know how it could be. I inquired of several of the brethren how that could be? a father and son and the son as old as the father. There was not a person that could or that would even try to explain that matter, but it came to pass that in time a vision was opened, the voice of the spirit came to me saying: that all matter was eternal, that it never had a beginning and that it should never have an end and that the spirits of all men were organized of a pure material or matter upon the principle of male and female.

I hadn't hear that story. Thanks. I think it was Young, though, that extended this idea into the spirit birth idea, the concept that a god impregnates a goddess who gives birth to a newborn spirit, born of spirit matter which Young equated with "intelligence." It made sense in the context of Adam-God. Adam and Eve, he said, gave birth to spirits, and subsequently came to earth and gave birth to their bodies. Robinson's view (that the matter itself is the uncreated part of the human intelligence) seems to be a Young-ward step from Orson Pratt, whose view was itself a step away from Joseph Smith's. (Like Smith, Pratt taught that the human intelligence was uncreated, but Pratt postulated that God associated each "intelligence" with a "spirit body" organized out of matter--whereas Smith used "spirits" and "intelligences" interchangeably.)

As I understand it, in the 20th century the "spirit birth" doctrine has reverted back to something more like what Orson Pratt taught, except that the literalness of birth within the context of Young's theology has been retained. In essence, an "intelligence" (some amorphous non-spirit thing that nobody has bothered to define, but which is somehow different from a spirit) goes into the uterus of a goddess after being impregnated by a god, and the goddess gives birth to a spirit baby composed of spirit matter. Then, when a mortal is born, she is thus doubly-clothed. A hand within a glove within a glove. I think that's how most modern Mormons picture it.

[Chris Smith]

I hadn't hear that story. Thanks. I think it was Young, though, that extended this idea into the spirit birth idea, the concept that a god impregnates a goddess who gives birth to a newborn spirit, born of spirit matter which Young equated with "intelligence." It made sense in the context of Adam-God. Adam and Eve, he said, gave birth to spirits, and subsequently came to earth and gave birth to their bodies. Robinson's view (that the matter itself is the uncreated part of the human intelligence) seems to be a Young-ward step from Orson Pratt, whose view was itself a step away from Joseph Smith's. (Like Smith, Pratt taught that the human intelligence was uncreated, but Pratt postulated that God associated each "intelligence" with a "spirit body" organized out of matter--whereas Smith used "spirits" and "intelligences" interchangeably.)

I tend to think Adam God was a step beyond spirit birth than the other way around. I did a little more poking around the Internet, and ran across this from Van Hale. He cites some pretty good evidence for spirit birth having been current among Church leaders by 1845.

[Cobalt-70]

I tend to think Adam God was a step beyond spirit birth than the other way around. I did a little more poking around the Internet, and ran across this from Van Hale. He cites some pretty good evidence for spirit birth having been current among Church leaders by 1845.

That's what I meant to say, if it didn't come across clearly. The "spirit creation" views of Orson Pratt and perhaps a few others were a step away from Smith, and Adam-God was a further step away from Smith, building on the early work of Pratt. Thanks for reminding my of the Hale article, which I had read a long time ago but forgotten.

Here's how I see it: Despite an 1830 reference to a spirit creation as part of his bible translation (now Moses 3:5), Smith became increasingly clear during the 1830s, and crystal-clear in 1844, that the human spirit is uncreated. Pratt and a few others picked up on Smith's teachings about having posterity for eternity, about spirits being "material," and perhaps Moses 3, and assumed, despite Smith's other statements to the contrary, that he was talking about a human spirit birth. But I'm not convinced that Orson Pratt was talking about the literal spirit birth that Young was. Then Brigham Young went further and taught that God's (Adam's) fatherhood of the spirits of humanity was just as literal and biological as his fatherhood to the mortal Cain, Abel, Seth, and even Jesus. Yet Young jettisoned the idea of an uncreated human intelligence. To Young, the only uncreated thing was spirit matter.

[Cobalt-70]

Despite the many similarities, there are also a lot of differences between the Demiurge as envisioned by Plato and the Mormon Elohim. While Elohim is a demiurge, he is not quite the Demiurge of Plato, because Mormon theology does not otherwise fit well within Plato's system of metaphysics. Being highly materialistic, Mormonism has no concept of Forms. Also, Plato's Demiurge created not just the world, but element itself, out of indeterminate chaos, whereas the Mormon demiurge created the world out of chaotic eternal element.

[Tarski]

I don't think this is accurate. The "ground of all being" doesn't need to have the power to create or destroy matter. The ground of being is little more than a substrate, like for example the "strings" of string theory. The law that matter can neither be created nor destroyed could simply be one of the "rules" according to which the substrate operates. In other words, the "Ground of Being" is that which gives rise to matter, but there's no reason this process of giving rise to matter would need to have a beginning or ending.

Not only that, but the "ground of being" is usually presented as being as transcencendental as possible in the sense that it is strictly prior to all that we usually take for granted; matter, time, logic, consciousness etc. In particular, one should not think this "priority" as being temporal (prior in the sense of time). The priority could be logical for example or even something more ontologically basic (whatever that may mean).

Whatever theologians and ontologists mean when they use this phrase, I think it is clear that the Mormon notion of God (literal, physical, thinking feeling, human/primate) is at the other end of the spectrum.

[inquiringmind]

Whatever theologians and ontologists mean when they use this phrase, I think it is clear that the Mormon notion of God...is at the other end of the spectrum.

Which is why the Mormon notion of God might be closer to Plato's demiurge.

Now if Mormonism is true--if there is a demiurge-like God--could there still be some kind of ground of all being (including God Himself.)

Would Mormons view that as heresy?

Must a good Mormon believe that all of us (i.e. Heavenly Father, Heavenly Mother, Jesus and the angels who kept their first estate, Lucifer and the angels who followed him) , and matter (i.e. the stuff that our spiritual and physical bodies are made of), just existed as bare uncreated facts for an infinity of time before one of our company realized that we were there, that He was smart enough to be our leader, that we could become His children, and that together we could create a world?

In other words, do you all believe we were all just there, and unrelated to one another, until God became God and we became His children?

Were we all uncreated (individual, unrelated) intelligences before we were spirits (and is the spirit body just the tabernacle of intelligence, in the same way that the physical body is the tabernacle of spirit)?

Is that the only Orthodox Mormon view?

Edited April 4, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Cobalt-70]

Not only that, but the "ground of being" is usually presented as being as transcencendental as possible in the sense that it is strictly prior to all that we usually take for granted; matter, time, logic, consciousness etc. In particular, one should not think this "priority" as being temporal (prior in the sense of time). The priority could be logical for example or even something more ontologically basic (whatever that may mean).

Whatever theologians and ontologists mean when they use this phrase, I think it is clear that the Mormon notion of God (literal, physical, thinking feeling, human/primate) is at the other end of the spectrum.

Putting aside Joseph Smith's, Orson Pratt's or Brigham Young's theologies, which were rather more coherent than the current operative Mormon theology, I think the current Mormon idea of God is a hybrid, or more accurately a paradox. The Mormon God is both (1) eternal, unchanging, supreme, omnipotent, and omniscient, and (2) progressing, temporal, subordinate, limited, and respectful of free will. It doesn't make any more sense than the paradoxical way in which trinitarians describe Jesus as both fully God and fully human. Like trinitarians, Mormons just say, "Don't worry that this is logically impossible; your limited mind can't handle the mystery."

[Chris Smith]

Putting aside Joseph Smith's, Orson Pratt's or Brigham Young's theologies, which were rather more coherent than the current operative Mormon theology, I think the current Mormon idea of God is a hybrid, or more accurately a paradox. The Mormon God is both (1) eternal, unchanging, supreme, omnipotent, and omniscient, and (2) progressing, temporal, subordinate, limited, and respectful of free will. It doesn't make any more sense than the paradoxical way in which trinitarians describe Jesus as both fully God and fully human. Like trinitarians, Mormons just say, "Don't worry that this is logically impossible; your limited mind can't handle the mystery."

Very well said. That's pretty much how I see it too. I think this is one of Mormonism's sociological strengths, though, since it means materialists on the one hand and mystics on the other can each pick and choose what they find appealing and still feel fully orthodox.

[Log]

Just for kicks, let's say I affirm God is (1) eternal, supreme, possessing all possible power and all possible knowledge, and is (2) progressing, temporal, limited, and respectful of free will.

How paradoxical is that? 'Cause I'm not feelin' it.