Plato'S Demiurge

[tana]

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.

Unchanging: Remaining the same; showing or undergoing no change.

Progressive: Moving forward; proceeding onward; advancing; evincing progress; increasing; as, progressive motion or course; -- opposed to retrograde. [1913 Webster]

Edited April 4, 2012 by tana

[inquiringmind]

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.

Except that no one seems to feel it would be fully Orthodox to believe in both a demiurge-like Mormon deity, and some kind of ground of all being (including His being, and the being of any other uncreated intelligences.)

Does anyone?

Did Orson Pratt really say that TRUTH is the ultimate God (and does anyone know what he meant by that)?

Could he have been right?

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Because the following are opposites:

eternal vs. temporal

supreme vs. subordinate

unchanging vs. progressing

omnipotent vs. limited

the future is defined with perfect certainty vs. people's futures are not set in stone

If you ascribe opposite qualities to the same God, one of which is transcendent, then you have a paradox, meaning that what you are saying is illogical. For example, when you are claiming that God is both unchanging and progressing, there is no way to reconcile those two terms by appealing to God's inconsistency. If he is unchanging, then he is consistent, therefore he cannot also sometimes be progressing. Likewise, if you say that God is supreme, that means, by definition, that no god is his equal. Yet if no god is his equal, then he is not below another god. Or if he is subordinate to another god, then there is a god above him and he cannot be supreme.

[Log]

Because the following are opposites:

eternal vs. temporal

<snip>

My specific list contained only one of those pairs you see as opposites - eternal vs. temporal - therefore, I think it would be better to respond to what I have written, rather than what I have not.

To satisfy the law of non-contradiction, let us assert that a being without an absolute beginning in time, nor an end of existence at any time, is eternal. Is that sufficient?

[Cobalt-70]

My specific list contained only one of those pairs you see as opposites - eternal vs. temporal - therefore, I think it would be better to respond to what I have written, rather than what I have not.

To satisfy the law of non-contradiction, let us assert that a being without an absolute beginning in time, nor an end of existence at any time, is eternal. Is that sufficient?

Your list included (1) both eternal and temporal, (2) both omnipotent and limited, and (3) both omniscient and respectful of free will. So in this hypothetical, the only qualities you omit are that God is subordinate, and that he is unchanging. If so, then yes, if God is not subordinate, then he can be supreme. If God is progressing, then he is not "unchanging from everlasting to everlasting" (D&C 20:17).

[Log]

Actually, I never used "omnipotent" and "omniscient". Those terms carry baggage I had hoped my explanatory phrases would have dispensed with.

[volgadon]

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

Not a CFR, but I would very much like to know where the emanation quote comes from.

[inquiringmind]

I was just re-reading a PM I got from a board member here.

He wrote.

I think the raw materials for creation - matter or element (the inactive part of reality) and intelligence (the active, choosing part of reality) - are themselves eternal and cannot be created nor annihilated. I think as far as eternal existence goes, that we as intelligent personalities (what I think is meant by the word "intelligences") did not exist before we became the children of God anymore than my children existed in this world before they were conceived, if that makes sense - the raw materials that make us up existed, to be sure, but we could not have the form and power that we have except by God's actions. I think, without God, whatever we are made up of would have remained in chaos, unformed, and unorganized.

That does make sense to me, and might answer some of my questions here, but I would still ask whether there might be some common ground of being (for God and the raw materials)?

I can't conceive of a universe without an ultimate ground of being.

Might it be our God Himself, His God (if He has one), or Something/Someone above Gods?

Would any such view be at all compatible with Mormon Theology?

(These are the questions I had when I started this thread, and I'd still be interested in any thoughts anyone has to offer.)

P.S. Is anyone familiar with the Orson Pratt "TRUTH is the ultimate God" quote (I'd really like to read that in context)?

Edited April 5, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Chris Smith]

Not a CFR, but I would very much like to know where the emanation quote comes from.

http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2009/10/my-favorite-joseph-smith-revelation.html

[Cobalt-70]

Actually, I never used "omnipotent" and "omniscient". Those terms carry baggage I had hoped my explanatory phrases would have dispensed with.

What is the difference, in your view, between (1) omnipotent vs. "possessing all possible power" and (2) omniscient vs. "possessing all possible knowledge"? I don't think addition of the word "possible" makes any difference, because by definition, impossible power and impossible knowledge do not exist.

[Log]

What is the difference, in your view, between (1) omnipotent vs. "possessing all possible power" and (2) omniscient vs. "possessing all possible knowledge"? I don't think addition of the word "possible" makes any difference, because by definition, impossible power and impossible knowledge do not exist.

There may be no difference between "omnipotent" and "possessing all possible power." There may be significant difference between "possessing all possible power" and "possessing unlimited power."

Edited April 5, 2012 by Log

[volgadon]

http://chriscarrolls...revelation.html

Thank you, most interesting.

[Cobalt-70]

There may be no difference between "omnipotent" and "possessing all possible power." There may be significant difference between "possessing all possible power" and "possessing unlimited power."

Like what? If there is no limitation on the possession of power, then all possible power is possessed.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Log]

If all possible power is possessed, then is there no limitation on the power possessed?

Clearly the antecedent (all possible power) does not entail the consequent (unlimited power). Hence, God may be omnipotent, possessing all possible power, yet limited, because the power possessed has boundaries, conditions, and so forth, and no paradox ensues.

[dtorge26]

Except that no one seems to feel it would be fully Orthodox to believe in both a demiurge-like Mormon deity, and some kind of ground of all being (including His being, and the being of any other uncreated intelligences.)

Does anyone?

Did Orson Pratt really say that TRUTH is the ultimate God (and does anyone know what he meant by that)?

Could he have been right?

I think Orson Pratt's statement is a valid one. God serves truth, does he not? Would He be God if he didn't?

If it is TRUTH that development of christlike attributes lead to a happy, eternal existence, can God change that truth? I think not. Then TRUTH is the ultimate God. And there you may actually have the ultimate ground of being.

[inquiringmind]

I think Orson Pratt's statement is a valid one. God serves truth, does he not? Would He be God if he didn't?

If it is TRUTH that development of christlike attributes lead to a happy, eternal existence, can God change that truth? I think not. Then TRUTH is the ultimate God. And there you may actually have the ultimate ground of being.

Thank you.

[Cobalt-70]

If all possible power is possessed, then is there no limitation on the power possessed?

Clearly the antecedent (all possible power) does not entail the consequent (unlimited power). Hence, God may be omnipotent, possessing all possible power, yet limited, because the power possessed has boundaries, conditions, and so forth, and no paradox ensues.

If there is a boundary, limitation, or condition on God's power, then God does not have all possible power. That means there exists power that God doesn't have, but that he could have but for the limitation. Moreover, the entity or phenomenon that enforces the limitation has power that God does not have. Since the limitation is being enforced, clearly the power represented by that limitation is "possible."

Edited April 5, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Log]

If there is a boundary, limitation, or condition on God's power, then God does not have all possible power. That means there exists power that God doesn't have, but that he could have but for the limitation.

Is this restatement is accurate? "If there is a boundary, limitation, or condition on God's power, then there exists power that God doesn't have, but that he could have but for the limitation."

If so, consider the following.

It is impossible to square the circle. Thus, there is at least one limitation on God's power; specifically, He can't square the circle.

Your reasoning implies that there exists power to square the circle that God doesn't have, but that he could have but for the fact that it doesn't exist.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Log

[inquiringmind]

http://chriscarrolls...revelation.html

The idea that individual intelligences are emanations of Intelligence makes some sense to me, and fits in with some of the things that Brigham Young taught.

Christ will never cease the warfare, until he destroys death and him that hath the power of it. Every possession and object of affection will be taken from those who forsake the truth, and their identity and existence will eventually cease. “That is strange doctrine.” No matter, they have not an object which they can place their hands or affections upon, but what will vanish and pass away. That is the course and will be the tendency of every man and woman, when they decided to leave this kingdom.

JD 4:32.

And

Jesus says, he will destroy death and him that hath the power of it. What can you make of this but decomposition, the returning of the organized particles to their native element, after suffering the wrath of God until the time appointed. That appears a mystery, but the principle has been in existence from all eternity, only it is something you have not known or thought of. When the elements in an organized form do not fill the end of their creation, they are thrown back again, like brother Kimball’s old pottery ware, to be ground up, and made over again. All I have to say about it is what Jesus says—I will destroy Death, and him that hath the power of it, which is the devil. And if he ever makes “a full end of the wicked,” what else can he do than entirely disorganize them, and reduce them to their native element? Here are some of the mysteries of the kingdom.

JD 1:275-276

These comments would make no sense if individual intelligences are uncreated, eternal, and indestructible; but might if they're emendations of the Uncreated, Eternal, and Indestructible.

I think Orson Pratt's statement is a valid one. God serves truth, does he not? Would He be God if he didn't?

If it is TRUTH that development of christlike attributes lead to a happy, eternal existence, can God change that truth? I think not. Then TRUTH is the ultimate God. And there you may actually have the ultimate ground of being.

And don't the standard works (somewhere) refer to Intelligence, Light, and Truth as one and the same thing?

Maybe it's this one that's the ultimate ground of being.

Thank you.

Edited April 6, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Chris Smith]

inquiringmind,

Here's a quote you may find interesting, from an article by Charles Harrell in BYU Studies:

Parley P. Pratt's earliest recorded views on the derivation of man's spirit correspond remarkably to the classical doctrine of emanation, which uses the analogy that man emanates from god the way a spark is emitted from a fire. Verging on pantheism, the doctrine of emanation emphasizes that all men are parts of God, a notion Orson Pratt claimed was taught by Joseph Smith. Emanation differs from creation in that it implies that man's existence is derived from God's being or essence rather than being merely a creature of his making. This notion is not to be confused with spirit birth, however. Man is seen more as being an offshoot of God rather than his offspring. Emanation was the most common form of preexistencism in the early Christian church. This Platonic concept regarded the soul as a part of the divine nature from which it proceeded and to which it will again return. Pratt chose to use similar language in 1838 when he wrote that mortals are "animated by the spirit of life" and, at death, will "return to the fountain and become part of the great all from which they emanated." Pratt's teachings clearly evidence an early belief that the human spirit was merely an individual expression of God's uncreated, inexhaustible intelligence.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Chris Smith

[inquiringmind]

inquiringmind,

Here's a quote you may find interesting, from an article by Charles Harrell in BYU Studies:

Parley P. Pratt's earliest recorded views on the derivation of man's spirit correspond remarkably to the classical doctrine of emanation, which uses the analogy that man emanates from god the way a spark is emitted from a fire. Verging on pantheism, the doctrine of emanation emphasizes that all men are parts of God, a notion Orson Pratt claimed was taught by Joseph Smith. Emanation differs from creation in that it implies that man's existence is derived from God's being or essence rather than being merely a creature of his making. This notion is not to be confused with spirit birth, however. Man is seen more as being an offshoot of God rather than his offspring. Emanation was the most common form of preexistencism in the early Christian church. This Platonic concept regarded the soul as a part of the divine nature from which it proceeded and to which it will again return. Pratt chose to use similar language in 1838 when he wrote that mortals are "animated by the spirit of life" and, at death, will "return to the fountain and become part of the great all from which they emanated." Pratt's teachings clearly evidence an early belief that the human spirit was merely an individual expression of God's uncreated, inexhaustible intelligence.

Thank you Chris.

That quote is very interesting (and I underlined one thing that really jumped out at me.)

It kinda makes sense of a lot of things for me (thank you very much.)

Edited April 6, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

P.S. This idea that intelligences are individual expressions of God's Intelligence seems to be something that Brigham Young and Orson Pratt agreed on.

Does anyone else think they may have been right?

Is the idea just a relic of the past, or is it still allowable today?

[dtorge26]

P.S. This idea that intelligences are individual expressions of God's Intelligence seems to be something that Brigham Young and Orson Pratt agreed on.

Does anyone else think they may have been right?

Is the idea just a relic of the past, or is it still allowable today?

I vote for relic of the past. It seems rather clear to me that they were trying to reconcile a couple of competing ideas, but without a complete understanding of what 'intelligence' really means:

1) We must be related to God somehow.

2) If we are eternal beings, then we can't have a beginning.

I can see how the idea of emanation would have come out of an attempted resolution of these ideas. It seems like they were reaching for understanding based on notions which hadn't been fully revealed yet. Perhaps they were impatient just like us.

Where I think this conversation gets derailed a bit is in the notion of 'individual identity', and exactly what it means and how it comes to be. It seems to me that emanation would result in a seamless transition of God's identity into multiple child identities. Now, that could be how it actually works, but it strikes me as a very eastern type of idea which flies in the face of individual freedom and accountability to which Mormonism so faithfully espouses.

[inquiringmind]

Where I think this conversation gets derailed a bit is in the notion of 'individual identity', and exactly what it means and how it comes to be.

Does it "come to be"?

Do you consider that a possibility (or is it ruled out by some modern revelation that Brigham Young and Orson Pratt didn't have in their day)?

Edited April 6, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

P.S. Does it say, anywhere within the standard works. that "intelligences" (plural) cannot be created or destroyed, or that they (plural) are uncreated and eternal?

Edited April 6, 2012 by inquiringmind